From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Susanne Ebrecht <miracee@miracee.de>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: rename of a view
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:36:22 -0400
Message-ID: <15084.1183181782@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1183181585.20942.1.camel@goldbach>
References: <46839C05.7050307@miracee.de>
<3450.1183040211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20070629183219.GO7636@fetter.org>
<20070630001653.GQ7636@fetter.org>
<4685D8C8.2070808@timbira.com>
<12776.1183177571@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1183181585.20942.1.camel@goldbach>
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2007-30-06 at 00:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is exactly 0 chance of that happening, because it's always worked
>> historically.
> Agreed, but I think the patch should disallow ALTER VIEW ... RENAME on a
> non-view, and ALTER SEQUENCE ... RENAME on a non-sequence.
No objection to that; it'd square with our treatment of TYPE and DOMAIN
commands. What I'm wondering though is whether the whole patch has
a reason to live at all, as compared to documenting someplace more
prominent than now that ALTER TABLE works on views & sequences.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, neilc@samurai.com, euler@timbira.com, david@fetter.org, miracee@miracee.de
Subject: Re: rename of a view
In-Reply-To: <15084.1183181782@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox