Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1014684717.531.45.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 Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes: > > Additionally, if someone eventually fixes the index-ownership situation, > > the changes to command.c to remove the index recursion are trivial. > > ... but won't necessarily get done. More to the point, they may confuse > someone who's trying to refactor the code: without careful thought, he > might think he needs to support recursion over indexes as well as child > tables. Not if the code includes a comment (as it does) that the recursion is intended _only_ to support changing the ownership of any indexes which belong to the table. IMHO, it's not confusing at all: in the current code, indexes have owners, and should be owned by the owner of the table they belong to. The patch makes this consistent; without the patch, one might conclude that there are reasonable situations in the owner of a table should not own its indexes, which is incorrect AFAIK. BTW, should ownership be removed from sequences as well? > > This patch also includes some refactoring and code cleanups that are > > useful in any case. > > Sure. Please resubmit just that part. Okay, I've attached a patch which implements this. I think it is still a bad idea to leave code that is _known_ to be broken in the tree, waiting for a possible future enhancement that no one has committed to writing. But it's your call -- please apply either this patch, or the previous one (-3) as you see fit. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Вложения
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: