On Sat, 2007-30-06 at 01:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Using ALTER TABLE to rename views and sequences is quite counter- intuitive, and has been a repeated source of confusion for users. Sure, we can document that behavior more prominently, but it seems to me it would be more straightforward in the long-run to just make the system behave more intuitively in the first place. As an added bonus, it takes very little new code to implement. For the ALTER SEQUENCE case, I think it's also a little weird to have an ALTER SEQUENCE command that modifies some of the properties of a sequence, but not the sequence's name. While that argument doesn't apply to ALTER VIEW at the moment, recent history suggests that it may only be a matter of time before we need to add an ALTER VIEW command anyway... (for instance, to control the properties of materialized or updateable views). -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
