On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Well, you can rename an item today if you don't mind doing a direct
> >> UPDATE on pg_enum. I think that's probably sufficient if the demand
> >> only amounts to one or two requests a year. I'd say leave it off the
> >> TODO list till we see if there's more demand than that.
>
> > I'd say put it on and mark it with an [E]. We could use some more
> > [E]asy items for that list.
>
> We don't need to add marginally-useful features just because they're
> easy. If it doesn't have a real use-case, the incremental maintenance
> cost of more code is a good reason to reject it.
Perhaps we should remove the ability to rename tables and databases too.
It would certainly lighten the code path.
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt