Re: ALTER SEQUENCE enchancement

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER SEQUENCE enchancement
Date: 2003-11-24 16:10:28
Message-ID: 87wu9psq6j.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Is there demand for this syntax:
>
> ALTER SEQUENCE ON table(col) CYCLE 100;

What if the values in a column are generated via a sequence that was
created independently -- i.e. it's not a SERIAL column?

I'm not very enthusiastic about features that assume a one-to-one
mapping between sequences and columns; in general, the mapping is
many-to-many.

-Neil

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Michel POURE 2003-11-24 16:20:17 Re: Build farm
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2003-11-24 15:38:20 Re: Build farm