Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA

--On Mittwoch, Juni 08, 2005 14:49:56 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:

> The code seems fairly schizoid about whether the operation is an "alter
> namespace" or a "rename". Please be consistent. I'd say it is *not*
> a rename, but I suppose you could make an argument the other way ...

No, i totally agree. Well, the Rename* stuff was influenced by my first
shot, that follows the syntax ALTER OBJECT name RENAME SCHEMA TO name....

>
> The locking you are doing is inconsistent with the rest of the backend.
> We generally don't hold locks on catalogs longer than necessary.
>

Okay, needs to be adjusted.

> Applying "const" to pointers that point to things that are not const,
> as in
>
> + void
> + ApplyTypeNamespace( Oid typeOid,
> + const Relation rel,
>
> seems to me to be horrible style, even if the compiler lets you do it.
> It's too easy to misread it as a promise not to alter the pointed-to
> object.
>

Well, i thought there *should* be a promise, not to alter *rel in that
specific case.

--

Bernd