ben_ata wrote:

>>It is not part of the SQL standard, yet. It has been suggested to
> add
>
>>to the standard the statement RENAME TABLE, but it is just a
>>suggestion as of now and not part of SQL-2003(only mentioned in 2
>>lines of text). Although, MS-SQL doesn't support it, Oracle does.
>>So, my guess is that it is Oracle that submitted the RENAME TABLE
>>syntax to be included in the standard.
>
>
> Oracle isn't the only DBMS supporting this:
>
> PostgreSQL, MySQL and Sybase SQL Anywhere support renaming a table as
> well. To my knowledge SQL Server does support it as well via the
> sp_rename stored procedure.

Personally I will always use the Create and Drop route, so rename CAN be
done with Firebird. With the discussions on the developer list on how
changes like these can be CORRECTLY incorporated into the MGA (multi
generational architecture) I can see WHY Create and Drop IS the right
route, because transactions in progress need to be able to see the old
table or correctly 'crash' cleanly when committing against a non
existent table - so even RENAME will work internally like create and
drop - but with the advantage that the data is copied just by linking to
the correct table header.

Given the number of examples recently of sites going off-line while
damage to databases are repaired or upgrades go wrong, it would be nice
to establish if on line changes to database structure IS safe :)

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services