Re: ALTER SEQUENCE: Missing feature?

>>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...
>>
>>
>
>I guess it comes down to a philosophical thing. Should people need to
>know the PostgreSQL internals like the fact that a SEQUENCE is
>currently implemented as a TABLE, or should they just be able to do
>reasonable things like call ALTER SEQUENCE when they alter a sequence?
>
>
>
I would have to second this. From a user, user space programmer, dba
perspective a SEQUENCE is a
SEQUENCE not a table... thus operations such as ALTER that effect the
SEQUENCE should
use ALTER SEQUENCE.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>Cheers,
>D
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL