Andres Freund 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.
Wel
On 2013-03-06 09:27:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I don't find this particularly suprising. Nothing looks at that field in
> > sequences, there imo is no point on having the name inside at all.
>
> Yeah, and we really can't update the name there because there is no
> provi
Andres Freund writes:
> I don't find this particularly suprising. Nothing looks at that field in
> sequences, there imo is no point on having the name inside at all.
Yeah, and we really can't update the name there because there is no
provision for transactional updates of sequence tuples.
> I pe
>
> I don't find this particularly suprising. Nothing looks at that field in
> sequences, there imo is no point on having the name inside at all.
>
> Do you need that for some usecase or did you just happen to notice it?
>
> I personally don't see any way to nicely fix that. We can add code to
> a
On 2013-03-06 09:15:01 +, maxim.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7920
> Logged by: Maksym Boguk
> Email address: maxim.bo...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.3
> Operating system: Linux
> Description:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7920
Logged by: Maksym Boguk
Email address: maxim.bo...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.3
Operating system: Linux
Description:
sequence_name left stale after sequence rename:
Test case shows same prob