Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>, pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef
Date: 2009-03-10 03:54:08
Message-ID: 21151.1236657248@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's the default value being used for anyway?

> I'm guessing that particular query is from
> DatabaseMetaData.getColumns(), which returns amongst other things:
> 13. COLUMN_DEF String => default value (may be null)
> (yes, that's the sum total of the JDBC documentation about that piece of
> metadata)

Hmm. The correct, pg_dump-tested way to get the default expression is
pg_catalog.pg_get_expr(adbin, adrelid)
but that's fairly expensive. I'm having a hard time recommending
that you put it into DatabaseMetaData.getColumns, when probably 99.99%
of applications won't even look at the value let alone care if it is
stale. OTOH the joins involved are not-cheap already, so maybe this
worry is just premature micro-optimization.

BTW, is there a reason for the query to be using LIKE 'name' instead of
= 'name'? And if so, is whatever generates it smart about underscores
and % and \ in the name?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Jowett 2009-03-10 04:06:57 Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2009-03-10 03:44:08 Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef