On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:32 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> wrote:>I'm am wondering whether "REASSIGNED OWNED" needs fixing as wellPossibly, but as the op is on 9.3, it is not available to him.You should check the docs again... I would also argue that since "OWNER TO new_owner" is available in all other ALTER object statements, it is an omission and should beincluded for extenstions as well..As am I, but omission or not I don't recall that we've ever back-patched new SQL grammar.David J.>You should check the docs again...Yes, you are correct, it is in 9.3>I don't recall that we've ever back-patched new SQL grammar.I am not saying back patch, I am saying an enhancement for version 10 or 11.-- Melvin DavidsonI reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> wrote:>I'm am wondering whether "REASSIGNED OWNED" needs fixing as wellPossibly, but as the op is on 9.3, it is not available to him.You should check the docs again... I would also argue that since "OWNER TO new_owner" is available in all other ALTER object statements, it is an omission and should beincluded for extenstions as well..As am I, but omission or not I don't recall that we've ever back-patched new SQL grammar.David J.
>I'm am wondering whether "REASSIGNED OWNED" needs fixing as wellPossibly, but as the op is on 9.3, it is not available to him.
I would also argue that since "OWNER TO new_owner" is available in all other ALTER object statements, it is an omission and should beincluded for extenstions as well..
pgsql-general by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных