On 2013-03-06 09:27:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I don't find this particularly suprising. Nothing looks at that field in > > sequences, there imo is no point on having the name inside at all. > > Yeah, and we really can't update the name there because there is no > provision for transactional updates of sequence tuples.
True. > > I personally don't see any way to nicely fix that. We can add code to > > also change the contents, but currently thats generic code. Or we could > > just remove the column in the next release? > > This has been discussed before, and the general opinion has been to > leave things alone until we get around to doing a wholesale refactoring > of sequence support. There has been talk for example of merging all > sequences into one catalog, instead of the current very wasteful > technique of having a whole relation to store (in essence) one counter. > That would probably break existing code that tries to select from a > sequence, but at least there would be objective benefits from it. > Removing the sequence_name column alone would also break existing code, > for ... um ... not much. The only argument I see is reduced chance of people making errors. Code that actually uses sequence_name is broken. If we had something like columns that are computed on output, we could use that. What we could do is invent a new pseudo-column type like tableoid that renders as text.. In the end it doesn't seem worth bothering. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
