From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |
Date: | 2003-11-13 14:18:30 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311131514220.16787-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Rod Taylor writes:
> Yes, it is certainly fine to do so, but much faster to do the above.
Are table schema changes performance-sensitive operations, and are they
usually done in bulk? I doubt it.
> I've not found another database which allows this syntax. The suggestion
> of TRANSFORM was Toms and was a result of using an assignment cast by
> default. Do you have a better term I can use?
I'm not sure I buy this whole concept in the first place. If there is
no cast between type A and type B, then surely changing a table column
from A to B is nonsensical.
> -- or say Bytes to MBytes (original column is int8)
> ALTER TABLE tab ALTER col TYPE integer TRANSFORM col / (1024 * 1024);
You can do this using a plain column type change plus an UPDATE. I'd
prefer to keep these operations independent.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-13 14:20:05 | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-13 13:14:27 | Re: [PATCHES] initdb in C |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-13 14:20:05 | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-13 13:14:27 | Re: [PATCHES] initdb in C |