On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> Yeah -- why is LOCK SEQUENCE foo_seq not allowed? Seems a simple thing >>> to have. > >> It cause a grammar conflict. > > That's a lot of work for a purely cosmetic issue, though. What would be > trivial is to let this work: > > regression=# create sequence s1; > CREATE SEQUENCE > regression=# begin; > BEGIN > regression=# lock table s1; > ERROR: "s1" is not a table > > We should do that anyway, even if we put in the effort to support the > other syntax.
Ugh. We are already stuck supporting all kinds of backward compatibility cruft in tablecmds.c as a result of the fact that you used to have to use ALTER TABLE to operate on views and sequences. The whole thing is confusing and a mess. -1 from me on extending that mess to more places. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
