On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> 100.179370@germanynet.de (Martin Jacobs) writes:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It might work to rename the type (eg, "update pg_type set typname =
> >> 'pgname' where typname = 'name'). Haven't tried that to see what
> >> sorts of problems it might have. Would definitely recommend doing
> >> any experimentation of this sort in a scratch database ;-)
>
> > I've done such experiment. It does not work, sorry for the
> > noise. :-(
>
> No? What goes wrong?
My PG environment is still 7.03. I did a pg_dump of an
existing small database, consisting of a couple of tables,
sequences and more. I removed the data import from the dump
file, created a new test database, renamed type 'name' to
'pg_name' as you suggested and tried to import the dumpfile
into the new database with
psql -e test < dumpfile
and get the error message
ERROR: Unable to locate type name 'name' in catalog
The first line after the connect command is
CREATE SEQUENCE "anbieter_lieferant_seq" start 61 increment 1 maxvalue 2147483647 minvalue 1 cache 1 ;
In the follow up there are more error messages due to the
first error.
My conclusion: there is no simple way to name a table like a
type name.
Right?
>
> > I can understand Pruner, it's a bit disappointing to have
> > 'name' as table name blocked by PG internals, and other rather
> > natural table names too. Is there really no solution?
>
> Once we implement schemas (hopefully Real Soon Now), I'd expect the
> built-in type names to be part of the system schema, where they'd not
> prevent you from creating new table + type names in your own schema.
> Of course, you will still not like what happens after you create a
> table named "text", say ... but as long as you're sufficiently careful
> about qualifying table names and type names it seems like it should
> work.
> ...
Sounds promising, so let's look forward.
Regards
Martin
--
Dipl-Ing. Martin Jacobs * Windsbach * Germany
Registered Linux User #87175, http://counter.li.org/
