Re: ALTER command reworks

2013/2/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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.
>
Like trigger or constraint, rule is unavailable to integrate the generic
rename logic using AlterObjectRename_internal().
So, I don't think this patch needs to take much design change.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>