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?
andrew
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 accordingly.
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?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
