I wrote:
> I'm certainly not arguing for a wholesale rework of the syntax in order
> to achieve maximum consistency (nice as that might be), but it seems to
> me that it would be a mistake to introduce more inconsistency than is
> already there when it's not necessary to do so.
What I mean here is that I think it would be in our best interests to
define the syntax for any new operation to be as easily guessed as
possible. I believe that ALTER INDEX would be more easily guessed by
more people as the means by which one would alter an index's tablespace
than ALTER TABLE, even if those people have a decent amount of PG
experience.
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com