> I've not looked in a while, but the column rename code did not account
> for issues in foreign keys, etc. Those should be easier to ferret out
> soon, but may not be so nice to change yet.
Which is probably a good reason for us to offer it as an all-in-one command,
rather than expecting them to do it manually...
> It should also be noted that an ALTER TABLE / SET TYPE implemented with
> the above idea with run into the 2x diskspace issue as well as take
> quite a while to process.
I think that if the 'SET TYPE' operation is ever to be rollback-able, it
will need to use 2x diskspace. If it's overwritten in place, there's no
chance of fallback... I think that a DBA would choose to use the command
knowing full well what it requires? Better than not offering them the
choice at all!
Chris