Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > [ pgsql-v9.3-alter-reworks.3-rename.v10.patch.gz ]
Say ... I hadn't been paying too close attention to this patch, but is there any particularly principled reason for it having unified only 14 of the 29 object types handled by ExecRenameStmt()? If so, how to tell which object types are supposed to be covered? The reason I'm asking is that it's very unclear to me whether https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1043 (ALTER RENAME RULE) is okay in more-or-less its current form, or whether it ought to be bounced back to be reworked for integration in this framework. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
