Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA
Date
Msg-id FF868F8FC0D47FB00B69131A@sparkey.oopsware.intra
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA
List pgsql-hackers
--On Mittwoch, Juni 08, 2005 14:49:56 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
wrote:

> The code seems fairly schizoid about whether the operation is an "alter
> namespace" or a "rename".  Please be consistent.  I'd say it is *not*
> a rename, but I suppose you could make an argument the other way ...

No, i totally agree. Well, the Rename* stuff  was influenced by my first 
shot, that follows the syntax ALTER OBJECT name RENAME SCHEMA TO name....

>
> The locking you are doing is inconsistent with the rest of the backend.
> We generally don't hold locks on catalogs longer than necessary.
>

Okay, needs to be adjusted.

> Applying "const" to pointers that point to things that are not const,
> as in
>
> + void
> + ApplyTypeNamespace( Oid typeOid,
> +             const Relation rel,
>
> seems to me to be horrible style, even if the compiler lets you do it.
> It's too easy to misread it as a promise not to alter the pointed-to
> object.
>

Well, i thought there *should* be a promise, not to alter *rel in that 
specific case.

-- 
 Bernd


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: ALTER [OBJECT] SET SCHEMA
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Account in postgresql database