Sequence name with SERIAL type

[Marek Lewczuk]

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

Thanks.

ML


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddres sHere" to ma*******@postg resql.org)

[Michael Fuhr]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:59:03AM +0100, Marek Lewczuk wrote:

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

You'd have to hack the source code. See the transformColumn Definition()
and makeObjectName( ) functions in src/backend/parser/analyze.c.

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

[Tom Lane]

Marek Lewczuk <ne***@lewczuk. com> writes:

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

Sure ... just hack one or two places in the sources ...

That probably wasn't the answer you wanted, but I'm quite unsure what
you did want. Are you suggesting the above would be a better default
naming scheme? Are you saying you want user-configurability of implicit
sequence names? In either case, what's your argument why we should
invest effort and possibly create backwards-compatibility issues?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[Richard Huxton]

On Wednesday 17 December 2003 07:59, Marek Lewczuk wrote:

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

Your two options seem to be:
1. Build your own sequence and don't use SERIAL
2. Change the source (should be a simple change).

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

[Paul Thomas]

On 17/12/2003 07:59 Marek Lewczuk wrote:

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

You could try something like

myfield integer default nextval('mysequ ence')

where you have previously created the sequence mysequence.

HTH

--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

[Marek Lewczuk]

Tom Lane wrote:

Marek Lewczuk <ne***@lewczuk. com> writes:

I'm curious if the default scheme for sequence name (which is created
with SERIAL data type) can be changed -- currently all sequences are
named like this: <table_name>_<f ield_name>_seq -- can it be changed for
e.g. <table_name>__< field_name>__se q ???

Sure ... just hack one or two places in the sources ...

That probably wasn't the answer you wanted, but I'm quite unsure what you did want.

I just asked is it can be done (somehow...).
Are you suggesting the above would be a better default
naming scheme? Are you saying you want user-configurability of implicit
sequence names? In either case, what's your argument why we should
invest effort and possibly create backwards-compatibility issues?

I'm not saying that proposed naming scheme is better - I think that it
is more readable, and I'm using it in my project.
Look at below examples:

Primary key:
1. <table_name>__p key
(e.g. my_clients__pke y)

Foreign key:
1. <table_name>__< field>__fkey
(e.g. my_clients__cli ent_id__fkey)
2. <table_name>__< field>_<field>_ _fkey
(e.g. my_clients__cli ent_id_company_ id__fkey)

Index:
1. <table_name>__< field>__index
(e.g. my_clients__cou ntry__index)
2. <table_name>__< field>_<field>_ <field>__inde x
(e.g. my_clients__cou ntry_city_stree t__index)

Sequence:
1. <table_name>__< field>__seq
(e.g. my_clients__cli ent_id__seq)
As you can see all naming schemes are very similar, and becouse of this
I just wanted to know if there is something like "user-configurability
implicit of sequence names". I didn't want to propose NEW naming scheme
- but maybe my naming schemes are worth looking at.

ML



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend