On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 11:36 AM David G. Johnston < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2026, Matemática A3K <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Although it would have to be put in all relevant places to be >> consistent... This may be a lot of work >> but I volunteer to do it if deemed so >> > > It’s unclear where “all relevant places” are but it seems like a lot of > effort in response to a single report of user confusion (this one). I.e., > maybe we aren’t as thorough as we could be but it doesn’t seem to matter in > the real world. > Indeed > > That said, 5.7 has a couple of example-providing sections for renaming > tables and columns. Expanding that a bit would be acceptable to me. > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-alter.html#DDL-ALTER-RENAMING-TABLE > With that in mind, a way to tackle this may be improving the dependencies page (general case) with something like "PostgreSQL also uses this tracking for updating relevant objects when possible on ALTER operations (i.e. when renaming)." and update the spotted particular cases (tables, schemas) with something like " This will trigger updates to the related objects tracked by [Postgres' dependency tracker], which may be not sufficient to keep all the previous functioning in the new situation (i.e. user-defined functions)." Also, the main caveat here seems to be with user-defined functions, which may or may not be updated accordingly, this could also be the key point to note." This will trigger updates to the related objects tracked by [Postgres' dependency tracker], which may be not sufficient to keep all the previous functioning (i.e. user-defined functions)." If we iterate over this, perhaps we can arrive to concrete and useful improvement patch? > David J. > >
