Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE
Date: 2011-04-21 03:05:25
Message-ID: BANLkTingePf-hSg-eFMUOZTk7s88LpjTLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I've now committed this part; the actual fix for pg_dump is still
>> outstanding.  I am not too in love with the syntax you've chosen here,
>> but since I don't have a better idea I'll wait and see if anyone else
>> wants to bikeshed.
>
> How about "ALTER TABLE tabname [NOT] OF TYPE typename"?  It's at least a
> smidgeon less ambiguous.

I thought of that, but I hate to make CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE
almost-but-not-quite symmetrical. But one might well wonder why we
didn't decide on:

CREATE TABLE n OF TYPE t;

...rather than the actual syntax:

CREATE TABLE n OF t;

...which has brevity to recommend it, but likewise isn't terribly clear.

I presume someone will now refer to a standard of some kind....

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-04-21 03:16:47 Re: Extension Packaging
Previous Message Daniele Varrazzo 2011-04-21 03:04:39 Re: Extension Packaging