| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:04:01 |
| Message-ID: | 200406151904.01803.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
IIRC, it was the objection that you put forth when I last attempted to
do it... The question is perhaps not so much whether we can get away
with it, it's whether the behavior is reasonable and consistent for
users that don't know implementation details.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-06-15 17:07:57 | Re: 7.4.3 running a bit late ... |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-06-15 17:01:57 | Re: OWNER TO on all objects |