Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> (Unlike Peter and Bruce, I see no reason not to do that work
> incrementally, but OTOH there's not much reason not to do it in one
> patch either.)
Well, one reason is that the changes required to implement part of the
standard (ALTER SEQUENCE) in a transaction-safe fashion might require
significant changes to the current sequence implementation. However, I
haven't looked at that closely, so that might not be the case.
> Accordingly, I think we ought to resolve Peter's objection about the
> semantics before deciding how to proceed.
Yes, that's exactly what I was waiting for.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
