> I find that "ALTER TABLE RENAME" will work without complaint on a
> sequence. Seems we should either
> (a) prohibit renaming a sequence;
> (b) improve ALTER TABLE RENAME to know about changing the
> sequence_name field as well;
> (c) remove this cross-check from pg_dump; and/or
> (d) remove the sequence_name field from sequences entirely.
>
> (c) looks like the path of least resistance. I don't like (d) because
> of the risk of breaking existing application code that might look at
> the contents of sequences. Comments?
I know for a particular program I wrote, I wrote function that you feed it a
tablename and the serial fieldname and it spits back the currval, or the
nextval. I don't foresee renaming these fields or the sequences, but things
change.
It seems like (b) provides the most straightforward and predictable
behavior. Then again, I don't have to code it :)
Greg