Re: ALTER command reworks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks
Date: 2013-02-03 21:57:27
Message-ID: 14835.1359928647@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> [ pgsql-v9.3-alter-reworks.3-rename.v10.patch.gz ]

Say ... I hadn't been paying too close attention to this patch, but
is there any particularly principled reason for it having unified
only 14 of the 29 object types handled by ExecRenameStmt()?
If so, how to tell which object types are supposed to be covered?

The reason I'm asking is that it's very unclear to me whether
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1043
(ALTER RENAME RULE) is okay in more-or-less its current form,
or whether it ought to be bounced back to be reworked for integration
in this framework.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-02-03 22:25:09 Turning off hot_standby_feedback
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-02-03 21:08:35 Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables