| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making serial survive pg_dump |
| Date: | 2002-06-14 03:11:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2285.1024024312@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
>> What happens is the sequence is shared between several tables (eg.
>> invoice numbers or something)
> You cannot accomplish this situation by strictly using the SERIAL
> type.
But Chris is correct that there are borderline cases where we might
do the wrong thing if we're not careful. The real question here,
I suspect, is what rules pg_dump will use to decide that it ought
to suppress a CREATE SEQUENCE command, DEFAULT clause, etc, in
favor of emitting a SERIAL column datatype. In particular, ought it
to depend on looking at the form of the name of the sequence?
I can see arguments both ways on that...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-14 03:17:01 | Re: PostGres Doubt |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-06-14 02:55:13 | Re: [HACKERS] First cut at SSL documentation |