From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: rename index? |
Date: | 2001-11-22 03:11:12 |
Message-ID: | 27807.1006398672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Added to TODO:
> o Prevent ALTER TABLE RENAME from renaming indexes and sequences (?)
This would clearly be a step backwards, unless we provide alternate
syntax.
While it's maybe a tad inconsistent to allow ALTER TABLE RENAME to work
on the other relation types, I'm having a hard time getting excited about
doing any work just to be more rigid about it. There's a good reason
for DROP to be extremely tight about what it will do: you can't always
undo it. So the more checking we can do to be sure you meant what you
said, the better. OTOH a mistaken RENAME is easy enough to undo, so I'm
not so concerned about having very tight consistency checking on it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-22 03:11:30 | Re: Diff/Patch integration -> SQL cvs clone |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-22 03:10:02 | Re: Bug #513: union all changes char(3) column definition |