Re: OWNER TO on all objects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OWNER TO on all objects
Date: 2004-06-15 13:12:39
Message-ID: 178.1087305159@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> * Is there any reason there is no RENAME TO command for operators?

> That might change the precedence of the operator

... true ...

> and get you in a big mess with stored expressions everywhere.

Not with respect to compiled expressions. It could conceivably break
stored function source texts and application-generated queries, but
those are broken a fortiori by the new operator name.

So I don't think this objection has a lot of weight.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-06-15 13:40:35 Re: "An old version of the database format was found."
Previous Message Jim Seymour 2004-06-15 11:40:45 Re: [HACKERS] Release 7.4.3 branded