Kohei KaiGai escribió:
> 2013/2/3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > 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.
> >
> 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
