| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "D(dot) Dante Lorenso" <dante(at)lorenso(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with rename bigserial column |
| Date: | 2004-01-12 09:55:44 |
| Message-ID: | 200401120955.44187.dev@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sunday 11 January 2004 13:14, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 January 2004 21:31, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> > > I just ran into a dump/restore problem with a bigserial column
> > > on a renamed table.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I've corrected the problem manually, but it does seem like a bug
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > Sounds like a bug. You might want to have a look and see if it's
> > restoring the value of the old or new sequence.
> I think previous discussions on this couldn't decide between not renaming
> the underlying sequence and the one where the sequence is also renamed when
> the table is.
>
> Of course in this instance it's slightly different in that it does sound
> like a bug of the dump/restore process with the not renaming sequence
> behaviour employed.
Yep - it sounds like the column definition is doing one thing, while the
sequence definition is doing the other.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-01-12 09:57:32 | Re: Case sensitivity |
| Previous Message | Murray Bryant | 2004-01-12 09:11:11 | Error with tablefunc in postgres 7.4.1 |