Rod Taylor writes: > Yes, it is certainly fine to do so, but much faster to do the above.
Are table schema changes performance-sensitive operations, and are they usually done in bulk? I doubt it. > I've not found another database which allows this syntax. The suggestion > of TRANSFORM was Toms and was a result of using an assignment cast by > default. Do you have a better term I can use? I'm not sure I buy this whole concept in the first place. If there is no cast between type A and type B, then surely changing a table column from A to B is nonsensical. > -- or say Bytes to MBytes (original column is int8) > ALTER TABLE tab ALTER col TYPE integer TRANSFORM col / (1024 * 1024); You can do this using a plain column type change plus an UPDATE. I'd prefer to keep these operations independent. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly