questions on ALTER TABLE ... OWNER

From: nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway)
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: questions on ALTER TABLE ... OWNER
Date: 2002-02-19 17:24:01
Message-ID: 20020219172401.GA23354@klamath.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi all,

Currently, ALTER TABLE ... OWNER will change the ownership of a table,
view, sequence or index -- despite the fact that its name hints that it
is only for 'altering tables'.

1) Is this behavior optimal? There is clearly a need to change the
ownership of relations other than tables, but it seems to me that
pushing this functionality into ALTER TABLE is unintuitive.

On the other hand, creating ALTER INDEX ... OWNER, ALTER SEQUENCE ...
OWNER, etc. seems like overkill.

2) Should we perhaps warn the user, if they use 'ALTER TABLE ... OWNER'
on a non-table relation?

3) Should this behavior be documented? Currently the docs on ALTER TABLE
... OWNER say nothing about changing the ownership of non-table
relations.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kovacs Zoltan 2002-02-19 18:07:13 Re: alter table drop column status
Previous Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2002-02-19 16:03:20 Re: UTF-8 data migration problem in Postgresql 7.2