Subject: Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?

From: Nathan Bossart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:29:29 -0500

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Tom Lane <[email-masked]> writes:
>> It's possible that we could get away with just summarily changing
>> the argument type from text to regclass.  ISTR that we did exactly
>> that with nextval() years ago, and didn't get too much push-back.
>> But we couldn't do the same for the return type.  Also, this
>> approach does nothing for the concern about the name being
>> misleading.
> 
> Maybe we should go all the way the other way, and call it
> pg_get_identity_sequence() and claim that "serial" is a legacy form of
> identity columns?

Hm.  Could we split it into two functions, pg_get_owned_sequence() and
pg_get_identity_sequence()?  I see that commit 3012061 [0] added support
for identity columns to pg_get_serial_sequence() because folks expected
that to work, so maybe that's a good reason to keep them together.  If we
do elect to keep them combined, I'd be okay with renaming it to
pg_get_identity_sequence() along with your other proposed changes.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/20170912212054.25640.55202%40wrigleys.postgresql.org

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

---

From: vignesh C <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:54:39 +0530

> pg_get_identity_sequence() along with your other proposed changes.

I have changed the status of the patch to "Waiting on Author" as
Nathan's comments have not yet been followed up.

Regards,
Vignesh