Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Dean Rasheed writes: > [ alter-rule-rename_complete.v2.patch ] Committed with assorted editorialization. Aside from cosmetic issues, the main changes were: * use RangeVarGetRelidExtended with a callback to perform the lookup and locking of the target relation. This is a new API that the origin

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-02-04 Thread Ali Dar
The tweaks made by you seems fine. I'm good with it. Regards, Ali Dar On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 29 January 2013 15:34, Ali Dar wrote: > > Please find attached the complete patch for alter rename rule. I have > > followed all the suggestions. > > This looks good.

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-02-03 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 29 January 2013 15:34, Ali Dar wrote: > Please find attached the complete patch for alter rename rule. I have > followed all the suggestions. This looks good. I've tested it, and it appears to work as intended. I'm happy with the code, and the new docs and regression tests look OK. I have a c

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-01-29 Thread Ali Dar
Please find attached the complete patch for alter rename rule. I have followed all the suggestions. Followings things are added in this updated patch: 1) Disallow alter rename of ON SELECT rules. 2) Remove warning. 3) Varibles are lined up. 4) Used qualified_name instead of makeRangeVarFromAnyName.

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-01-20 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 3 January 2013 13:49, Ali Dar wrote: > Find attached an initial patch for ALTER RENAME RULE feature. Please note > that it does not have any documentation yet. > Hi, I just got round to looking at this. All-in-all it looks OK. I just have a few more review comments, in addition to Stephen's c

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-01-18 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Ali Dar (ali.munir@gmail.com) wrote: >> Find attached an initial patch for ALTER RENAME RULE feature. Please >> note that it does not have any documentation yet. > Just took a quick look through this. Seems to be alright, but why do we > allow renaming ON SELECT rul

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-01-18 Thread Stephen Frost
* Ali Dar (ali.munir@gmail.com) wrote: > Find attached an initial patch for ALTER RENAME RULE feature. Please > note that it does not have any documentation yet. Just took a quick look through this. Seems to be alright, but why do we allow renaming ON SELECT rules at all, given that they must

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-01-03 Thread Ali Dar
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I noticed the following object types don't have support for an ALTER ... > RENAME command: > > DOMAIN (but ALTER TYPE works) > FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER > OPERATOR > RULE > SERVER > > Are there any restrictions why these couldn't be added? > I

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2011-12-05 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I don't think so. There's no ALTER RULE command; should we add one > (matching ALTER TRIGGER) or make this part of ALTER TABLE? I don't > think constraints can be renamed either, which should probably be > addressed along with rules. Note that renaming an index-based const

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2011-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I noticed the following object types don't have support for an ALTER ... > RENAME command: > > DOMAIN (but ALTER TYPE works) > FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER > OPERATOR > RULE > SERVER > > Are there any restrictions why these couldn't be added? I do

[HACKERS] missing rename support

2011-12-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I noticed the following object types don't have support for an ALTER ... RENAME command: DOMAIN (but ALTER TYPE works) FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER OPERATOR RULE SERVER Are there any restrictions why these couldn't be added? (I stumbled upon this while trying to rename a foreign server, but we might as