On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 22:43 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-04-29 18:28, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > I still think thatthat there is merit to Michael's idea of removing
> > sequence "ownership" (which is just a dependency) when the DEFAULT
> > on the column is dropped, but this approach is possibly cleaner.
>
> I think the proper way to address this would be to create some kind of
> dependency between the sequence and the default.
That is certainly true. But that's hard to retrofit into existing databases,
so it would probably be a modification that is not backpatchable.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe