On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 02:53:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Fetter) writes: > > The fine folks in #postgresql brought this up, and it seems like, > > well, a bug. In order to make certain kinds of changes on a > > SEQUENCE, you have to issue an ALTER TABLE statement. Shouldn't > > alterations like RENAME TO, OWNER, etc. to a SEQUENCE all (be able > > to) go through ALTER SEQUENCE? What else might this impact? > > Sequences are tables in some very real senses. I don't see the > value in duplicating code just to allow people to spell TABLE as > SEQUENCE in these commands...
I guess it comes down to a philosophical thing. Should people need to know the PostgreSQL internals like the fact that a SEQUENCE is currently implemented as a TABLE, or should they just be able to do reasonable things like call ALTER SEQUENCE when they alter a sequence? Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 cell: +1 415 235 3778 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html