Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1014679393.531.5.camel@jiro обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes: > > You mentioned child-tables: should ALTER TABLE OWNER also recurse for > > those? > > Only if you want to put in an "ONLY" variant to suppress the recursion. > (This might actually be a reasonable thing to do, if so. But I don't > have a strong feeling about it.) Okay, I'll do that in a later patch. > My thought would be to group all the ALTER TABLE variants into one file, > perhaps "alter.c", separate from the other current inhabitants of > command.c. Note that alter.c could be a lot smaller than the current > sum of the ALTER routine sizes, given appropriate refactoring to > eliminate duplicate code. Okay, I'll create alter.c and see if I can refactor some of the ALTER code -- but that can wait for a later patch also. > >> Another point that maybe does need immediate attention: as coded, > >> reassignment of ownership of a table won't affect the associated > >> TOAST table, if any. Should it? > > > Dunno, I don't know anything about TOAST. I would think if anyone would > > know, it'd be you ;-) > > Well, see Peter's suggestion that this is all wrong because indexes > don't have meaningful ownership anyway. I think he's got a point... That's probably true -- in the long-run, it probably makes more sense to remove the concept of ownership from indexes. However, in the mean-time, I think my patch is still valid. Unless there are any remaining problems, please apply for 7.3. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: