| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com |
| Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Matthias Kurz <m(dot)kurz(at)irregular(dot)at>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Alter or rename enum value |
| Date: | 2016-09-03 20:48:04 |
| Message-ID: | 26875.1472935684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> writes:
> Other than these, it looks good to me. I am marking it as Ready for Committer.
I started looking at this patch. I'm kind of unhappy with having *both*
IF EXISTS and IF NOT EXISTS options on the statement, especially since
the locations of those phrases in the syntax seem to have been chosen
with a dartboard. This feels way more confusing than it is useful.
Is there really a strong use-case for either option? I note that
ALTER TABLE RENAME COLUMN, which is probably used a thousand times
more often than this will be, has so far not grown either kind of option,
which sure makes me think that this proposal is getting ahead of itself.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2016-09-03 20:57:08 | Long options for pg_ctl waiting |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-03 19:35:43 | Re: \timing interval |