Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> Well, you can rename an item today if you don't mind doing a direct
> > >> UPDATE on pg_enum. I think that's probably sufficient if the demand
> > >> only amounts to one or two requests a year. I'd say leave it off the
> > >> TODO list till we see if there's more demand than that.
> >
> > > I'd say put it on and mark it with an [E]. We could use some more
> > > [E]asy items for that list.
> >
> > We don't need to add marginally-useful features just because they're
> > easy. If it doesn't have a real use-case, the incremental maintenance
> > cost of more code is a good reason to reject it.
>
> Perhaps we should remove the ability to rename tables and databases too.
> It would certainly lighten the code path.
OK, got it. Added incomplete TODO item:
Allow renaming and deleting enumerated values from an existing
enumerated data type
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
