Don Y wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Don Y wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Don Y wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> It doesn't appear that there is a way to rename a sequence > >>>> (ideally with a "cascade" action). > >>> > >>> Uh, the ALTER SEQUENCE manual page says: > >> Uh, the 8.0.3 man page for ALTER SEQUENCE makes no mention of this. > >> Nor does "\h ALTER SEQUENCE" in psql yield any pointers. > >> > >>> Some variants of ALTER TABLE can be used with sequences as > >>> well; for example, to rename a sequence use ALTER TABLE > >>> RENAME. > >>> > >>> Does that help? > >> Sure! It appears to allow both the rename and change of ownership. > >> Thanks! > > > > I see the documentation mention added August 1, 2005 byt Tom Lane. > > Date tag on the bottom of my man pages is "2005-01-17" -- so that > explains *that*! :> > > In general, how safe is it to use "current" man pages (to > sidestep these sorts of issues)? Obviously, there will be Uh, not very safe. > things in the newer pages that reflect changes NOT present > in older versions... but, will the documentation updates > (i.e. this a prime example) outweigh the confusion added > by documentation for not-yet-existent features/fixes/etc.?) Probably not. This is an edge case, and often we backpatch changes like this, though that didn't happen in this case. For example, when I find doc things to add for 8.2, I add them to 8.1 if appropriate. > >> Obviously, the documentation doesn't agree with the code :-( > >> > >> But, it still leaves unanswered the question of the risk involved > >> in just changing the name/owner in the system tables... > > > > It is best to use ALTER. The only other sure-safe way to do it is to > > look at the ALTER code and do the same things with the system tables. > > However, in most cases a system table modification works fine, but I > > don't recommend it for production servers. > > One would *hope* that there was no redundant "information" > in the tables... but, realistically, that may not be the > case (efficiency hacks, etc.) Uh, there is dependency information that might be affected by certain updates. It isn't really redundant. > For *this* problem, an obvious solution exists. And, even > if it didn't, dropping the sequence, recreating it and > reinitializing it wouldn't be that painful. I'm just > wondering how aggressive I should be in "tinkering"... :-( You really have to consult the code to find out. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
