| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE schema SCHEMA TO new_schema? |
| Date: | 2002-12-01 22:52:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3DEA929B.8090101@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>possible. We should probably just go with your suggestion. Anything else
>>beyond the relnamespace and pg_depend entries that need to be dealt with?
>
> What about sequences for serial columns? What about views or types that
> depend on the table?
>
Yeah, good point. I think properly dealing with the pg_depends issues will
catch anything of that nature, but what to do with them?
Probably should move dependent type, constraint, index entries to the same new
namespace. We might want to move related sequences, but I'm not sure we'd want
to do that silently, since the sequence could be in use for other tables as
well. And we should probably restrict the change if there are dependent
functions or views. Does this capture the issues?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-12-01 23:01:50 | Re: Does anyone know what "embedded transactions" are? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-01 22:44:56 | Re: Does anyone know what "embedded transactions" are? |