Alexander Borkowski wrote:
> 1. Changing the owner of a table, view, or domain, which is not in the
> "public" schema does not work as the generated "ALTER ... OWNER TO ..."
> statement lacks the schema qualification for the object whose owner is
> to be changed. Instead the error message
Fixed.
> 2. Changing the name of an operator does not work either. The error
> message is
It's 8.0 only, disabled for older versions now.
> 3. I tried to create a pl/pgsql function which accepts a text[]
> argument. The dialog raises the following error message if I try to
> create such a function:
>
> ERROR: type text[] does not exist.
Extracted [] from quoting. Hopefully, nobody will use type names that
include trailing []... Type handling really needs a major rewrite, but
it's so boring...
> 4. Earlier I changed the type of one of my columns in one of my tables
> from varchar(64) to text. Unfortunately, during my first attempt I
> selected the new type "text" in the column property dialog before
> deleting the contents of the Length field, so the column type was
> changed to text(64) instead of text, which apparently works fine in
> queries. This is probably due to the fact that PostgreSQL stores these
> types in the same binary format anyway. The problem is that the table
> definition (with the text(64) column) saved as file and used to recreate
> the table fails with a syntax error, so I would classifiy this as bug.
This pre-8.0 alter column feature is a delicate thing...
Fixed now.
> 5. Creating a composite type requires at least two member fields to be
> added (the OK button stays disabled until there are at least two members
> defined). According to line 240 of src/ui/dlgType.cpp this is
> intentional, but at least according to my PostgreSQL documentation it is
> valid to have a composite type with just one field. IMHO this does make
> sense, as one can create a table with only one column as well. Am I
> missing something?
This is subject to discussion. For most users, probably it's correct to
restrict composite types to have >1 member; less doesn't make too much
sense (I'd suggest a domain instead). Not everything that's legal is
also sensible, so I'd opt to leave this a little restricted to reduce
newbie's surprises.
Committed to CVS, Thanks for your precise bug report!
New win32 snapshot uploading soon.
Regards,
Andreas
