Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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.
regards, tom lane
