Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_dump bug in 7.3.9 with sequences

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump bug in 7.3.9 with sequences
Date: 2005-02-03 01:13:01
Message-ID: 20050203011301.GB16075@dcc.uchile.cl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:49:59PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 01:54:48PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >>It is not pilot error if PostgreSQL allows it. There is
> >>nothing "illegal" about the above commands in their execution.
> >>The pg_dump application should recognize that the object has
> >>changed and react accordingly.
> >
> >ISTM this is a bug, but it's not clear to me what is the solution.
>
> 3. When the default is changed, the dependency is updated
> to reflect the new sequence. The old sequence is left intact
> as an independent object.

It seems reasonable to update the dependency.  But it isn't reasonable
to leave the old sequence intact, because it is an internal
implementation detail that should not be left around.  It would be a
bug, because later when the table is dropped then you have a dangling
object; this behavior would be equivalent to leaving the original
sequence around when the table is dropped, which is exactly the scenario
dependencies were written for.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
You liked Linux a lot when he was just the gawky kid from down the block
mowing your lawn or shoveling the snow. But now that he wants to date
your daughter, you're not so sure he measures up. (Larry Greenemeier)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2005-02-03 02:09:20
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem
Previous:From: John HansenDate: 2005-02-03 00:35:29
Subject: unicode upper/lower functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group