On Thursday October 28 2004 5:31, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 04:51:05PM -0600, Ed L. wrote:
> > But I didn't understand why you care to get rid of the explicit
> > reference to the sequence object in your code in the first place. In
> > PostgreSQL, at least for the past 5 years if not longer, if you create
> > a SERIAL column for (schemaname, tablename, columnname), then your
> > sequence will *always* be "schemaname.tablename_columnname_seq".
>
> Only for certain values of "always." Tables and columns can be renamed,
> so the sequence name might no longer be "tablename_columnname_seq",
> but rather "oldtablename_oldcolumnname_seq".
Your point is well taken, I see the gotcha there, and thus the value of a
function.
Ed