<br /><blockquote cite="mid20040201195739.GE19912@fetter.org" type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre
wrap="">Sequencesare 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... </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
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?
</pre></blockquote> I would have to second this. From a user, user space programmer, dba perspective a SEQUENCE is
a<br/> SEQUENCE not a table... thus operations such as ALTER that effect the SEQUENCE should<br /> use ALTER
SEQUENCE.<br/><br /> Sincerely,<br /><br /> Joshua D. Drake<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote
cite="mid20040201195739.GE19912@fetter.org"type="cite"><pre wrap="">Cheers,
D </pre></blockquote><br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jd@commandprompt.com">jd@commandprompt.com</a> - <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"href="http://www.commandprompt.com">http://www.commandprompt.com</a>
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL</pre>
