| From: | "Gregory Wood" <gregw(at)com-stock(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "PostgreSQL-General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump error |
| Date: | 2001-04-17 19:22:13 |
| Message-ID: | 004a01c0c773$dbde2870$7889ffcc@comstock.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> I find that "ALTER TABLE RENAME" will work without complaint on a
> sequence. Seems we should either
> (a) prohibit renaming a sequence;
> (b) improve ALTER TABLE RENAME to know about changing the
> sequence_name field as well;
> (c) remove this cross-check from pg_dump; and/or
> (d) remove the sequence_name field from sequences entirely.
>
> (c) looks like the path of least resistance. I don't like (d) because
> of the risk of breaking existing application code that might look at
> the contents of sequences. Comments?
I know for a particular program I wrote, I wrote function that you feed it a
tablename and the serial fieldname and it spits back the currval, or the
nextval. I don't foresee renaming these fields or the sequences, but things
change.
It seems like (b) provides the most straightforward and predictable
behavior. Then again, I don't have to code it :)
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Harrington | 2001-04-17 19:54:19 | RE: Clustering with PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Marc Wrubleski | 2001-04-17 19:20:19 | Re: Clustering with PostgreSQL? |