Named generator/sequence for IDENTITY field

[pastorkaluga]

For compatibility with the established practice of using generators in older versions, the built-in generator for an IDENTITY field should be named as table name, rather than using the default name RDB$1, or provide an option to explicitly specify the generator name, similar to how constraints are named.

[mrotteveel]

Why do you want or need this? The use of sequences to back the identity column is an implementation detail, it is not an API for users.

[pastorkaluga]

Why do you want or need this? The use of sequences to back the identity column is an implementation detail, it is not an API for users.

To ensure compatibility with existing migration, database exchange, and testing tools. There are several points where generators are manipulated.

[aafemt]

None of these processes can use IDENTITY columns.

[mrotteveel]

None of these processes can use IDENTITY columns.

You can manipulate the generator value with ALTER SEQUENCE and NEXT VALUE FOR, which is odd because I thought that was blocked for these sequences.

To ensure compatibility with existing migration, database exchange, and testing tools. There are several points where generators are manipulated.

Identity columns are a separate concept that come with their own issue for such tools (like when and where to use OVERRIDING {SYSTEM | USER} VALUE when migrating data). Treating it like it's just an alternate form of defining a sequence and trigger (even if that is largely how it is currently implemented), instead of ensuring your tools support them properly is asking for trouble. For example, I guess your tools likely won't work properly with GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY and that you're lucky they work somewhat for GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY. And embedding such expectations in Firebird itself by adding features that cement that implementation detail as an API will only mean that we can't implement it in some other way in the future.

[sim1984]

You can manipulate the generator value with ALTER SEQUENCE and NEXT VALUE FOR, which is odd because I thought that was blocked for these sequences.

+1
I think these capabilities should be blocked.