To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>,
	David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Susanne Ebrecht <miracee@miracee.de>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: rename of a view 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
	message dated "Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:33:05 -0700"
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:36:22 -0400
Message-ID: <15084.1183181782@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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