On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I don't think we should apply this as-is. After some reflection, I don't believe we should reject attribute renames on indices or composite types. The former is maybe useless but seems harmless, and the latter seems affirmatively useful. Also, I think that the comment about "this would normally be done in utility.c" is no longer true and should be removed while we're cleaning house. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
