| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE schema SCHEMA TO new_schema? |
| Date: | 2002-12-02 20:03:58 |
| Message-ID: | 007f01c29a3d$f38ecda0$6500a8c0@internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yeah, good point. I think properly dealing with the pg_depends issues will
> catch anything of that nature, but what to do with them?
>
> Probably should move dependent type, constraint, index entries to the same
new
> namespace. We might want to move related sequences, but I'm not sure we'd
want
> to do that silently, since the sequence could be in use for other tables
as
> well. And we should probably restrict the change if there are dependent
> functions or views. Does this capture the issues?
Why just restrict them to moving tables? What if someone wants to move a
function or an aggregate to another schema?
What if they want to copy it?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Szima Gábor | 2002-12-02 20:07:04 | Re: numeric to text (7.3) |
| Previous Message | Henner Zeller | 2002-12-02 19:50:42 | PG 7.3: Query Meta Data with the JDBC-driver |