2010/3/3 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: > (2010/03/03 22:42), Robert Haas wrote: >> 2010/3/3 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>> (2010/03/03 14:26), Robert Haas wrote: >>>> 2010/3/2 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>>>> Is it an expected behavior? >>>>> >>>>> postgres=> CREATE SEQUENCE s; >>>>> CREATE SEQUENCE >>>>> postgres=> ALTER TABLE s RENAME sequence_name TO abcd; >>>>> ALTER TABLE >>>>> >>>>> postgres=> CREATE TABLE t (a int primary key, b text); >>>>> NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index >>>>> "t_pkey" for table "t" >>>>> CREATE TABLE >>>>> postgres=> ALTER TABLE t_pkey RENAME a TO xyz; >>>>> ALTER TABLE >>>>> >>>>> The documentation says: >>>>> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-altertable.html >>>>> >>>>> : >>>>> RENAME >>>>> The RENAME forms change the name of a table (or an index, sequence, >>>>> or view) or >>>>> the name of an individual column in a table. There is no effect on >>>>> the stored data. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me the renameatt() should check relkind of the specified >>>>> relation, and >>>>> raise an error if relkind != RELKIND_RELATION. >>>> >>>> Are we talking about renameatt() or RenameRelation()? Letting >>>> RenameRelation() rename whatever seems fairly harmless; renameatt(), >>>> on the other hand, should probably refuse to allow this: >>>> >>>> CREATE SEQUENCE foo; >>>> ALTER TABLE foo RENAME COLUMN is_cycled TO bob; >>>> >>>> ...because that's just weird. Tables, indexes, and views make sense, >>>> but the attributes of a sequence should be nailed down I think; >>>> they're basically system properties. >>> >>> I'm talking about renameatt(), not RenameRelation(). >> >> OK. Your original example was misleading because you had renameatt() >> in the subject line but the actual SQL commands were renaming a whole >> relation (which is a reasonable thing to do). >> >>> If our perspective is these are a type of system properties, we should >>> be able to reference these attributes with same name, so it is not harmless >>> to allow renaming these attributes. >>> >>> I also agree that it makes sense to allow renaming attributes of tables >>> and views. But I don't know whether it makes sense to allow it on indexs, >>> like sequence and toast relations. >> >> I would think not. > > OK, the attached patch forbid renameatt() on relations expect for tables > and views.
OK, I will review it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
