Re: ALTER SEQUENCE: Missing feature? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid2197.1075670658@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">"Joshua D. Drake" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:jd@commandprompt.com"><jd@commandprompt.com></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I guess it comes down to a philosophical thing.
Shouldpeople 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><pre wrap="">I would have to second this.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
same name.  People will have to learn this fact about sequences
eventually.  For that matter we advertise it by using "SELECT * FROM
sequence" as a way of inspecting sequence parameters; will you invent
a replacement for that?
 </pre></blockquote> No because PostgreSQL uses SELECT for many things, including the execution of functions.<br /><br
/><br/><blockquote cite="mid2197.1075670658@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">(2) If you do want to hide it at
thecosmetic level you will have more
 
work to do than this.  ALTER TABLE also works (in some variants) on
indexes; will you also invent ALTER INDEX?</pre></blockquote> No because from a logical (at least mine) perspective,
Indicesare a table only thing. Sequences<br /> are not always used in correlation with a table. <br /><blockquote
cite="mid2197.1075670658@sss.pgh.pa.us"type="cite"><pre wrap="">  See also GRANT/REVOKE; will
 
you change that syntax too?</pre></blockquote><br /> I am not sure how this is even relevant as GRANT / REVOKE can be
appliedto a specific object?<br /><br /><blockquote cite="mid2197.1075670658@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">
Willyou invent new privilege names for
 
sequences to hide the overlap with table privilege types?  Will you
forbid the old spellings of all this stuff (thereby breaking existing
pg_dump files)?

It just seems like a much bigger can of worms to open than the payback
would justify. </pre></blockquote> That may be the case but couldn't you just have a generic function within C that
justcalls out the<br /> appropriate parameters per the relation? E.g; it knows that ALTER SEQUENCE is actually<br />
ALTERTABLE minus these six (whatever six they may be) parameters?<br /><br /> Sincerely,<br /><br /> Joshua D. Drake<br
/><br/><br /><br /><blockquote cite="mid2197.1075670658@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">        regards, tom
lane</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>