2013/2/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> [ pgsql-v9.3-alter-reworks.3-rename.v10.patch.gz ] > > Say ... I hadn't been paying too close attention to this patch, but > is there any particularly principled reason for it having unified > only 14 of the 29 object types handled by ExecRenameStmt()? > If so, how to tell which object types are supposed to be covered? > > The reason I'm asking is that it's very unclear to me whether > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1043 > (ALTER RENAME RULE) is okay in more-or-less its current form, > or whether it ought to be bounced back to be reworked for integration > in this framework. > Like trigger or constraint, rule is unavailable to integrate the generic rename logic using AlterObjectRename_internal(). So, I don't think this patch needs to take much design change.
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
