There is no guarantee that a given sequence is used only for one column
in one table, as I understand it. So renaming it could screw you up badly.
If we made 'serial-ness' first class, and hid the sequence completely
from view, this would make more sense.
Or am I smoking crack?
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>I've always wanted to be a PoatgreSQL hacker, and I am going to try this
>change out first. Bruce said that it's kind of low on the priority list, so
>hopefully I won't be holding anyone up if I take a while to get it right.
>The bug is that when you craete a table with a "SERIAL" column, and/or a
>"PRIMARY KEY", and then change that table's name via "ALTER TABLE", the
>related sequence and primary key index do not change their names
>I think the change is simple -- just update the names of the related
>sequences and indexes when the table name changes. Of course, the entire
>operation will have to be done in a transaction block.
>I'm playing with the CVS version of PostgreSQL right now -- compiling it and
>testing it. In the meantime, I am coming up with some unit tests to
>determine whether I succeed or not.
>Any comments about the project and its scope?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jon Jensen||Date: 2003-08-30 16:10:20|
|Subject: Re: massive quotes?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-30 16:05:35|
|Subject: Re: massive quotes? |