Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This patch appears seriously broken, in particular every routine I
>> looked at contained incorrect locking assumptions.  Nor do I care
>> for using pg_depend for the purposes it's being used for here.

> OK, how do we proceed?  Revert or apply a second patch?

I'd say revert; the patch is going to need significant rework.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow ALTER TABLE ... at 2006-02-12 01:04:24 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• ALTER CONSTRAINT RENAME patch reverted at 2006-02-12 19:13:51 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: James William Pye	Date: 2006-02-12 03:54:15
	Subject: python - fe: Clients can get PANIC ereports too.
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-02-12 03:30:21
	Subject: pgsql: Fix more fallout from line-wrap patch, to wit, arbitrarily

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-02-12 03:39:44
	Subject: Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line
Previous:	From: Sergey E. Koposov	Date: 2006-02-12 03:31:13
	Subject: Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line