Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > That was my thinking.  The issue has probably been there since 7.3.  I don't 
> > think we need to shove in a solution now, especially when there is so much 
> > disagreement about the behavior.
> 
> Well, we have a new issue that has made the problem much worse (ie ALTER
> SCHEMA RENAME), and these problems are not going to get any easier to
> solve later.  I think we should agree on something and do it.
> 
> Ripping out ALTER SCHEMA RENAME is not a solution unless you have a path
> to a solution later with more work.  So far there has been nothing in
> the way of "here is a proposal that will work but it'll take too much
> time to implement for 8.1".  Eventually we are going to have to settle
> on one of the lesser evils, so why not now?

Well, we are only giving ourselves a few weeks to solve this, and I
think a hack to make it work cleanly for users is better than supporting
two function names perpetually.

Remember the now, now(), CURRENT_TIMESTAMP issue of early binding.  It
is still confusing to remember which is which, and doing it for
sequences new function names is confusing too.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073