| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ioguix <ioguix(at)free(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field |
| Date: | 2007-09-26 14:10:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20424.1190815838@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
ioguix <ioguix(at)free(dot)fr> writes:
> br3619=# CREATE SEQUENCE sample_seq_to_rename;
> CREATE SEQUENCE
> br3619=# select sequence_name from sample_seq_to_rename;
> sequence_name
> ----------------------
> sample_seq_to_rename
> (1 ligne)
> br3619=# ALTER TABLE sample_seq_to_rename RENAME TO sample_seq;
> ALTER TABLE
> br3619=# select sequence_name from sample_seq;
> sequence_name
> ----------------------
> sample_seq_to_rename
> (1 ligne)
This is something we are unlikely to change, because it would have to be
a nontransactional update, which means it'd be out of sync if the ALTER
rolls back after making it. That cure seems hardly better than the
disease.
I seem to recall some prior discussions about rearranging the
representation of sequences to allow separation of transactional and
nontransactional updates, but I don't remember if there were any
non-cosmetic reasons to do it. This one seems pretty cosmetic ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-09-26 14:23:56 | Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field |
| Previous Message | ioguix | 2007-09-26 11:52:47 | Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field |