On 12 January 2012 00:58, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Hmm ... this seems a bit inconsistent with the fact that we got rid of > automatic renaming of indexes a year or three back. Won't renaming of > serials have all the same problems that caused us to give up on renaming > indexes?
I was sort of planning to do something similar for constraints (once the patch to support renaming constraints lands) and indexes (I didn't know they'd previously been automatically renamed and that had been dropped). Would you say that I should abandon this, no chance of being accepted? Is there a technical problem I'm missing, other than the gap between unique name generation and execution of the implicit ALTERs? Maybe I should look into writing a 'tidy rename' procedure for tables and columns instead, rather than modifying the behaviour of core ALTER TABLE. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
