Re: Odd(?) RI-trigger behavior

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> There is already a RenameStmt node which is currently only used to
> rename tables or table column names. Is there any objection to modifying
> it to handle trigger names (and possibly other things in the future) also?

You'd need to add a field so you could distinguish the type of rename,
but on the whole that seems a reasonable thing to do; probably better
than adding a brand new node type. We're already sharing node types
for DROPs, for example, so I see no reason not to do it for RENAMEs.
(Cf 'DropPropertyStmt' in current sources)

Renaming rules seems like something that should be on the list too,
so you're right that there will be more stuff later.

regards, tom lane