2012/8/30 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >> The attached patch is a refreshed version of ALTER command >> reworks towards the latest tree. Here is few big changes except >> for code integration of the code to rename event triggers. > > This seems to have bit-rotted a bit. Please rebase. > >> BTW, I had to adjust between oid of pg_largeobject_metadata >> and pg_largeobject on three points of this patch, like: >> >> if (classId == LargeObjectRelationId) >> classId = LargeObjectMetadataRelationId; >> >> When we supported largeobject permission features, we put >> special handling to track dependency of its ownership. >> The pg_depend records oid of pg_largeobject, instead of >> pg_largeobject_metadata. Thus, we cannot use classId of >> ObjectAddress being returned from get_object_address() >> as an argument of heap_open() as is, if it indicates oid of >> pg_largeobject. >> >> Was it a right decision to track dependency of large object using >> oid of pg_largeobject, instead of pg_largeobject_metadata? >> IIRC, the reason why we used oid of pg_largeobject is backward >> compatibility for applications that tries to reference pg_depend >> with built-in oids. > > I think it was a terrible decision and I'm pretty sure I said as much > at the time, but I lost the argument, so I'm inclined to think we're > stuck with continuing to support that kludge. > OK, we will keep to implement carefully...
> Some other preliminary comments: > > - Surely you need to take AccessExclusiveLock on the object being > renamed, not just ShareUpdateExclusiveLock. > - I don't think it's acceptable to assemble the object-type > "object-name" already exists message using getObjectDescription(); > it's not good for translators. Use an array of messages, one per > object-type, as we have done in other cases. > - I would like to handle either the RENAME case or the ALTER OWNER > case in one patch, and the other in a follow-on patch. Can you pick > one to do first and remove everything related to the other one? > OK, I'll split the patch into three (isn't it?) portions; RENAME, SET OWNER and SET SCHEMA, with all above your suggestions. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
