| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Susanne Ebrecht <miracee(at)miracee(dot)de>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: rename of a view |
| Date: | 2007-06-30 05:36:22 |
| Message-ID: | 15084.1183181782@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2007-30-06 at 00:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is exactly 0 chance of that happening, because it's always worked
>> historically.
> Agreed, but I think the patch should disallow ALTER VIEW ... RENAME on a
> non-view, and ALTER SEQUENCE ... RENAME on a non-sequence.
No objection to that; it'd square with our treatment of TYPE and DOMAIN
commands. What I'm wondering though is whether the whole patch has
a reason to live at all, as compared to documenting someplace more
prominent than now that ALTER TABLE works on views & sequences.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-06-30 05:40:44 | Re: rename of a view |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-06-30 05:33:05 | Re: rename of a view |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-06-30 05:40:44 | Re: rename of a view |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-06-30 05:33:05 | Re: rename of a view |