Thread: Re: [DOCS] rename of a view
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:48:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > > For the ALTER SEQUENCE case, I think it's also a little weird to > > have an ALTER SEQUENCE command that modifies some of the > > properties of a sequence, but not the sequence's name. While that > > argument doesn't apply to ALTER VIEW at the moment, recent history > > suggests that it may only be a matter of time before we need to > > add an ALTER VIEW command anyway... > > OK, that's a fairly convincing argument. Fire away. > > (I'm still not sure you found all the relevant places in the > documentation, however.) Here's a new patch + file. This one allows ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] to work only on the respective database objects, but permits the old ALTER TABLE syntax. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Attachment
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 12:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Here's a new patch + file. This one allows ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] to > work only on the respective database objects, but permits the old > ALTER TABLE syntax. How about taking a look at the more thorough documentation updates Tom suggested? -Neil
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:03:45PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 12:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > Here's a new patch + file. This one allows ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] to > > work only on the respective database objects, but permits the old > > ALTER TABLE syntax. > > How about taking a look at the more thorough documentation updates Tom > suggested? So far I've documented it in the index, the references, and in psql's tab completion. What other places would you suggest I look? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 12:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Here's a new patch + file. This one allows ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] to > work only on the respective database objects, but permits the old > ALTER TABLE syntax. Applied with some fixes. Thanks for the patch. ALTER VIEW ... SET SCHEMA might be another worthwhile thing to add, for consistency. -Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 12:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> Here's a new patch + file. This one allows ALTER [SEQUENCE | VIEW] to
>> work only on the respective database objects, but permits the old
>> ALTER TABLE syntax.
> Applied with some fixes. Thanks for the patch. ALTER VIEW ... SET SCHEMA
> might be another worthwhile thing to add, for consistency.
Er, was this on the agenda for 8.3?
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 2007-02-07 at 23:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Er, was this on the agenda for 8.3? Well, it seemed fairly harmless to me (no behavioral changes and very little new code, just syntax), so I didn't see a compelling reason to delay applying it for a few months. But I can revert it if you'd prefer. -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-07 at 23:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Er, was this on the agenda for 8.3? > > Well, it seemed fairly harmless to me (no behavioral changes and very > little new code, just syntax), so I didn't see a compelling reason to > delay applying it for a few months. But I can revert it if you'd prefer. hmm so now we have ALTER VIEW/SEQUENCE commands that can do a bit but not all of what ALTER TABLE can do (renaming columns of a VIEW or changing the owner for example). I agree in principle that having those functionality in ALTER VIEW/SEQUENCE is a good idea but only bringing in a bit of the required functionality which still does not solve the "uhm why do I need ALTER TABLE to manipulate a VIEW" months after the feature freeze sounds a bit wrong to me :-( Stefan
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes: > Neil Conway wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-02-07 at 23:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Er, was this on the agenda for 8.3? >> >> Well, it seemed fairly harmless to me (no behavioral changes and very >> little new code, just syntax), so I didn't see a compelling reason to >> delay applying it for a few months. But I can revert it if you'd prefer. > hmm so now we have ALTER VIEW/SEQUENCE commands that can do a bit but > not all of what ALTER TABLE can do (renaming columns of a VIEW or > changing the owner for example). > I agree in principle that having those functionality in ALTER > VIEW/SEQUENCE is a good idea but only bringing in a bit of the required > functionality which still does not solve the "uhm why do I need ALTER > TABLE to manipulate a VIEW" months after the feature freeze sounds a bit > wrong to me :-( What's bothering me here is failure to focus. We are not in development mode today, and have not been for months. What we need to be doing is wrapping up the patches that are already on the to-do list, not expending developer effort on new stuff. Neil, according to http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Todo:PatchStatus you have accepted two patches to review --- what is happening with those? regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil, according to > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Todo:PatchStatus > you have accepted two patches to review --- what is happening with > those? Yeah, sorry, forgot about those -- I'll take a look at them tonight. -Neil