Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > That was my thinking. The issue has probably been there since 7.3. I don't
> > think we need to shove in a solution now, especially when there is so much
> > disagreement about the behavior.
>
> Well, we have a new issue that has made the problem much worse (ie ALTER
> SCHEMA RENAME), and these problems are not going to get any easier to
> solve later. I think we should agree on something and do it.
>
> Ripping out ALTER SCHEMA RENAME is not a solution unless you have a path
> to a solution later with more work. So far there has been nothing in
> the way of "here is a proposal that will work but it'll take too much
> time to implement for 8.1". Eventually we are going to have to settle
> on one of the lesser evils, so why not now?

Well, we are only giving ourselves a few weeks to solve this, and I
think a hack to make it work cleanly for users is better than supporting
two function names perpetually.

Remember the now, now(), CURRENT_TIMESTAMP issue of early binding. It
is still confusing to remember which is which, and doing it for
sequences new function names is confusing too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073