Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 22:00, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> It's possible that we could get away with just summarily changing
> >> the argument type from text to regclass. ISTR that we did exactly
> >> that with nextval() years ago, and didn't get too much push-back.
> >> But we couldn't do the same for the return type. Also, this
> >> approach does nothing for the concern about the name being
> >> misleading.
> >
> > Maybe we should go all the way the other way, and call it
> > pg_get_identity_sequence() and claim that "serial" is a legacy form of
> > identity columns?
>
> Hm. Could we split it into two functions, pg_get_owned_sequence() and
> pg_get_identity_sequence()? I see that commit 3012061 [0] added support
> for identity columns to pg_get_serial_sequence() because folks expected
> that to work, so maybe that's a good reason to keep them together. If we
> do elect to keep them combined, I'd be okay with renaming it to
> pg_get_identity_sequence() along with your other proposed changes.

I have changed the status of the patch to "Waiting on Author" as
Nathan's comments have not yet been followed up.

Regards,
Vignesh