On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Well, you can rename an item today if you don't mind doing a direct > >> UPDATE on pg_enum. I think that's probably sufficient if the demand > >> only amounts to one or two requests a year. I'd say leave it off the > >> TODO list till we see if there's more demand than that. > > > I'd say put it on and mark it with an [E]. We could use some more > > [E]asy items for that list. > > We don't need to add marginally-useful features just because they're > easy. If it doesn't have a real use-case, the incremental maintenance > cost of more code is a good reason to reject it.
Perhaps we should remove the ability to rename tables and databases too. It would certainly lighten the code path. JD > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
