Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: ziga(at)mail(dot)ljudmila(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA
Date: 2005-06-11 11:46:17
Message-ID: F1440B31694F0121686AFDCD@sparkey.oopsware.intra
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On Freitag, Juni 10, 2005 21:20:33 +0200 ziga(at)mail(dot)ljudmila(dot)org wrote:

> Wouldn't
>
> ALTER [OBJECT] RENAME TO [schema.][name]
>
> be a better?
>
> After all, this is essentially a rename operation,
> so maybe it is better to extend existing syntax...

I don't think it's a good idea to merge two different semantics: Renaming a
table and "moving" a table to a different schema should be distinguished.
Furthermore, i think it's too error prone, because people could accidently
issue a "schema move" and renaming a table by a typo....

--

Bernd

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hugo 2005-06-11 12:44:32 how to return a result set from a stored procedure
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-11 11:26:11 Re: The Contrib Roundup (long)