On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> > You mentioned child-tables: should ALTER TABLE OWNER also recurse for
> > those?
>
> Only if you want to put in an "ONLY" variant to suppress the recursion.
> (This might actually be a reasonable thing to do, if so. But I don't
> have a strong feeling about it.)
Okay, I'll do that in a later patch.
> My thought would be to group all the ALTER TABLE variants into one file,
> perhaps "alter.c", separate from the other current inhabitants of
> command.c. Note that alter.c could be a lot smaller than the current
> sum of the ALTER routine sizes, given appropriate refactoring to
> eliminate duplicate code.
Okay, I'll create alter.c and see if I can refactor some of the ALTER
code -- but that can wait for a later patch also.
> >> Another point that maybe does need immediate attention: as coded,
> >> reassignment of ownership of a table won't affect the associated
> >> TOAST table, if any. Should it?
>
> > Dunno, I don't know anything about TOAST. I would think if anyone would
> > know, it'd be you ;-)
>
> Well, see Peter's suggestion that this is all wrong because indexes
> don't have meaningful ownership anyway. I think he's got a point...
That's probably true -- in the long-run, it probably makes more sense to
remove the concept of ownership from indexes.
However, in the mean-time, I think my patch is still valid. Unless there
are any remaining problems, please apply for 7.3.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
