Re: [HACKERS] Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename

On 15 December 2015 at 04:40, Craig Ringer wrote: > It gets written as part of the Form_pg_sequence each time we write a > sequence advance to WAL, but just seems to be a waste of space. > Agreed > Am I missing something obvious or should it just be removed? Or perhaps

[HACKERS] Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename

Hi all Does anyone know why Form_pg_sequence has a field sequence_name that duplicates the sequence's name from pg_class ? It's assigned when the sequence is created by copying it from pg_class. It isn't subsequently referenced anywhere as far as I can see. It isn't updated by ALTER SEQUENCE ...

Re: [HACKERS] Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename

Craig Ringer writes: > Does anyone know why Form_pg_sequence has a field sequence_name that > duplicates the sequence's name from pg_class ? It's historical, for sure. We won't be removing it in the foreseeable future because of on-disk-compatibility issues. But you

Re: [HACKERS] Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> Does anyone know why Form_pg_sequence has a field sequence_name that >> duplicates the sequence's name from pg_class ? > > It's historical, for sure. We won't be removing it in