Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20424.1190815838@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its 'sequence_name' field (ioguix <ioguix@free.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #3619: Renaming sequence does not update its
'sequence_name' field
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
ioguix <ioguix@free.fr> writes: > br3619=# CREATE SEQUENCE sample_seq_to_rename; > CREATE SEQUENCE > br3619=# select sequence_name from sample_seq_to_rename; > sequence_name > ---------------------- > sample_seq_to_rename > (1 ligne) > br3619=# ALTER TABLE sample_seq_to_rename RENAME TO sample_seq; > ALTER TABLE > br3619=# select sequence_name from sample_seq; > sequence_name > ---------------------- > sample_seq_to_rename > (1 ligne) This is something we are unlikely to change, because it would have to be a nontransactional update, which means it'd be out of sync if the ALTER rolls back after making it. That cure seems hardly better than the disease. I seem to recall some prior discussions about rearranging the representation of sequences to allow separation of transactional and nontransactional updates, but I don't remember if there were any non-cosmetic reasons to do it. This one seems pretty cosmetic ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: