Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE
Date
Msg-id BANLkTingePf-hSg-eFMUOZTk7s88LpjTLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I've now committed this part; the actual fix for pg_dump is still
>> outstanding.  I am not too in love with the syntax you've chosen here,
>> but since I don't have a better idea I'll wait and see if anyone else
>> wants to bikeshed.
>
> How about "ALTER TABLE tabname [NOT] OF TYPE typename"?  It's at least a
> smidgeon less ambiguous.

I thought of that, but I hate to make CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE
almost-but-not-quite symmetrical.  But one might well wonder why we
didn't decide on:

CREATE TABLE n OF TYPE t;

...rather than the actual syntax:

CREATE TABLE n OF t;

...which has brevity to recommend it, but likewise isn't terribly clear.

I presume someone will now refer to a standard of some kind....

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniele Varrazzo
Date:
Subject: Re: Extension Packaging
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extension Packaging