Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names
Date: 2003-08-30 16:06:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 JensenDate: 2003-08-30 16:10:20
Subject: Re: massive quotes?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-30 16:05:35
Subject: Re: massive quotes?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group