Oops: meant pg_type.typname
and
pg_class.relname.
----- Original Message ----
From: craigp <craigp98072@yahoo.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2008 2:36:33 AM
Subject: newbie: renaming sequences task
Hi
-
I
was
perusing
the
todo
list
to
see
some
easy
items
that
I
might
help
out
on
(and
get
up
to
speed
on
postgres
hacking)...
one
of
them
(with
%)
seems
to
lead
to
another:
o
%Have
ALTER
TABLE
RENAME
rename
SERIAL
sequence
names
o
Have
ALTER
SEQUENCE
RENAME
rename
the
sequence
name
stored
in
the
sequence
table
and
perhaps
this
one
as
well:
Consider
placing
all
sequences
in
a
single
table,
or
create
a
system
view
I
read
through
the
mailing
list
links
(they
seem
to
culminate
with
these
two):
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-09/msg00141.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-10/msg00038.php
But
I'm
left
a
bit
confused
on
what,
if
anything,
can
or
should
be
done.
Maybe
this
isn't
the
best
item
to
start
with?
If
I
had
some
more
direction,
it
might
be
straightforward
enough.
One
thing
I
did
notice:
sequence
names
are
stored
in
both
pg_type.typname
and
pg_class.relkind.
I
presume
both
tables
would
need
to
be
updated,
unless
we
remove
the
redundancy?
Why
can
they
not
be
updated
within
a
single
transaction
(easily)?
What
sort
of
restructuring
would
be
needed
to
separate
out
the
transactional
vs
non-transactional
aspects?
thanks!
--craig
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never
miss
a
thing.
Make
Yahoo
your
home
page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping