On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 02:53:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> david@fetter.org (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 david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 cell: +1 415 235 3778
