| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER INDEX |
| Date: | 2004-08-20 05:32:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0408201530040.21451@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > No, but it is a missing capability many will complain about. I can
> > easily remove it. I saw no one comment when I added it to the patches
> > queue.
>
> I hadn't seen you add it to the patches queue ...
>
> I did see Gavin's submission but did not yet have time to look at the
> details. What does it *do* exactly --- simply allow INDEX as a
> substitute for TABLE in the syntax, or more? I'm not thrilled at the
> idea of adding a lot of duplicate coding for this.
I tried to avoid any duplication. The patch still uses all the ALTER TABLE
code. Its just a grammar modification and some setting of completion tags.
That being said, I felt obliged to provide at patch when I started hearing
noise about ALTER TABLE <index name> being a bit of a hack -- which it is.
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-20 15:02:07 | Re: ALTER INDEX |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-20 04:51:11 | Re: ALTER INDEX |