Kind people,
The fine folks in #postgresql brought this up, and it seems like,
well, a bug. In order to make certain kinds of changes on a SEQUENCE,
you have to issue an ALTER TABLE statement. Shouldn't alterations
like RENAME TO, OWNER, etc. to a SEQUENCE all (be able to) go through
ALTER
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Fetter) writes:
The fine folks in #postgresql brought this up, and it seems like,
well, a bug. In order to make certain kinds of changes on a SEQUENCE,
you have to issue an ALTER TABLE statement. Shouldn't alterations
like RENAME TO, OWNER, etc. to a SEQUENCE all (be
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 02:53:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Fetter) writes:
The fine folks in #postgresql brought this up, and it seems like,
well, a bug. In order to make certain kinds of changes on a
SEQUENCE, you have to issue an ALTER TABLE statement. Shouldn't
Sequences are tables in some very real senses. I don't see the
value in duplicating code just to allow people to spell TABLE as
SEQUENCE in these commands...
I guess it comes down to a philosophical thing. Should people need to
know the PostgreSQL internals like the fact
