Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

Seems this is already a TODO:

* Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tara Piorkowski <tara(at)vilaj(dot)com> writes:
> > Regardless, my thinking had been that I was looking at an INT with a
> > DEFAULT set, in which case I think this would be a bonified bug, thus my
> > report.
>
> Right --- but *if you'd declared it that way*, the system would have
> reacted in the way you were expecting. SERIAL sets up dependencies that
> prevent you from dropping the sequence as a separate entity, while an
> INT column with a handmade DEFAULT expression doesn't.
>
> Ideally, a SERIAL column would completely hide the fact that it's made
> from a sequence and a default expression. We're not there yet ... but
> 7.3 is closer than ever before. (It'd be interesting to look at whether
> Rod Taylor's DOMAIN work could help button things up.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073