ioguix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
