Re: Tablespace issues (comment on ,moving indexes) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Tablespace issues (comment on ,moving indexes)
Date
Msg-id 27904.1092146626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tablespace issues (comment on ,moving indexes)  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
Responses Re: Tablespace issues (comment on ,moving indexes)  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
> ...  But what we're talking about
> here is brand new functionality for which the language hasn't been
> defined yet.

You're missing the point, which is that there *is* a precedent of long
standing.  ALTER TABLE has worked on indexes (and sequences, and views)
for those cases in which the operation sensibly applied for a long time.
In particular, the original 7.1 implementation of ALTER TABLE OWNER
would work on tables, indexes, sequences, and views.  Should we really
have insisted on inventing four syntaxes for the identical operation?
Maybe, but we didn't, and now there is a precedent to follow.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum Win32 Service Code
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Add Missing From?