On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:36:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, 2007-30-06 at 00:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> There is exactly 0 chance of that happening, because it's always > >> worked historically. > > > Agreed, but I think the patch should disallow ALTER VIEW ... > > RENAME on a non-view, and ALTER SEQUENCE ... RENAME on a > > non-sequence. > > No objection to that; it'd square with our treatment of TYPE and > DOMAIN commands. What I'm wondering though is whether the whole > patch has a reason to live at all, as compared to documenting > someplace more prominent than now that ALTER TABLE works on views & > sequences.
How could it be prominent short of documentation of the thing people would expect, which is ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] RENAME TO ... ? I suppose we could document that they're actually done by ALTER TABLE, but that just seems like a huge POLA violation, along with assuming way too much knowledge of how sequences and views are implemented. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
