From: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: <sequence_name>.sequence_name != <sequence_name>? |
Date: | 2003-04-04 18:27:36 |
Message-ID: | 200304041127.36082.pgsql@bluepolka.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday April 4 2003 10:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> > When a sequence is created in 7.3.2, it appears you get a new table for
> > each sequence object. Is it ever possible for the sequence_name in a
> > sequence relation not to match the name of the relation itself?
>
> In general I'd counsel that you should ignore the sequence_name field
> anyway. It's vestigial.
A related question: Is there a single generalized SQL query which can yield
the set of (sequence_name, last_value) pairs for all sequence objects? The
fact that each sequence is its own relation seems to block that, and the
query constructed from grabbing sequence names from pg_class gets quite
long for more than just a few sequence objects...
Ed
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-04-04 18:41:04 | Re: more contrib: log rotator |
Previous Message | Ed L. | 2003-04-04 18:10:16 | Re: more contrib: log rotator |