Re: ALTER SEQUENCE: Missing feature?

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...
        regards, tom lane