david(at)fetter(dot)org (David Fetter) writes:
> The fine folks in #postgresql brought this up, and it seems like,
> well, a bug. In order to make certain kinds of changes on a SEQUENCE,
> you have to issue an ALTER TABLE statement. Shouldn't alterations
> like RENAME TO, OWNER, etc. to a SEQUENCE all (be able to) go through
> ALTER SEQUENCE? What else might this impact?
Sequences are tables in some very real senses. I don't see the value in
duplicating code just to allow people to spell TABLE as SEQUENCE in
these commands...
regards, tom lane