Re: Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename
Дата
Msg-id 14203.1450155926@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Does anyone know why Form_pg_sequence has a field sequence_name that
> duplicates the sequence's name from pg_class ?

It's historical, for sure.  We won't be removing it in the foreseeable
future because of on-disk-compatibility issues.  But you might want to
read the pghackers archives, five or ten years back, where we speculated
about redoing sequences to combine them all into one system catalog
(ie, store one row per sequence not one relation per).  Aside from
application compatibility issues, the stumbling block seemed to be how to
separate transactional from nontransactional updates.  That particular
problem is also why ALTER SEQUENCE RENAME can't update the sequence's copy
of the relation name: the wrong things happen if you roll back.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Unused(?) field Form_pg_sequence.sequence_name, not updated by seq rename
Следующее
От: amul sul
Дата:
Сообщение: small query, about skipping dump in dumpAttrDef