Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-03-06 09:27:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Removing the sequence_name column alone would also break existing code,
>> for ... um ... not much.
> The only argument I see is reduced chance of people making errors. Code
> that actually uses sequence_name is broken.
Well, only if you rename the sequence, which is something many people
would never do.
> If we had something like columns that are computed on output, we could
> use that. What we could do is invent a new pseudo-column type like
> tableoid that renders as text..
> In the end it doesn't seem worth bothering.
Yeah. If I recall the older discussions correctly, we talked about
somehow splitting a sequence's storage between transactionally-updatable
and non-transactionally-updatable parts, so that we could make altering
a sequence's parameters transactional. Preserving anything remotely
like "select * from sequence" would require a view or some such.
Whenever somebody gets around to attacking that whole problem, I'll be
for that; but in the meantime it seems like we should leave it alone
instead of making marginal changes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
