On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 02:03:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> nconway@klamath.dyndns.org (Neil Conway) writes:
> > Currently, ALTER TABLE ... OWNER will change the ownership of a table,
> > view, sequence or index -- despite the fact that its name hints that it
> > is only for 'altering tables'.
>
> > 1) Is this behavior optimal? There is clearly a need to change the
> > ownership of relations other than tables, but it seems to me that
> > pushing this functionality into ALTER TABLE is unintuitive.
>
> > On the other hand, creating ALTER INDEX ... OWNER, ALTER SEQUENCE ...
> > OWNER, etc. seems like overkill.
>
> Definitely overkill.
You're probably right -- although there is a symmetry between 'create
sequence', 'alter sequence', and 'drop sequence', rather than 'create
sequence', 'alter table' and 'drop sequence'.
BTW, the same semantic problems also apply to ALTER TABLE ... rename.
> I'd say tweak the docs and leave the code alone.
Okay, fixed. I also corrected another minor inaccuracy in the ALTER
TABLE docs.
Bruce/Tom: Please apply for 7.2.1 and 7.3.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
