Kohei KaiGai escribió: > 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.
I did give that patch a glance last week, asked myself the same question as Tom, and gave myself the same answer as KaiGai. Sorry I didn't post that. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
