I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. :)
Tom Lane wrote:
> John Burski <johnb(at)911ep(dot)com> writes:
> > When you drop a table, you should, IMO, drop the related sequences and indices
> > as well (they don't automatically drop).
> Correction: indexes *are* dropped automatically when you drop their
> The sequence made to support a SERIAL column should be dropped
> automatically when the table is dropped, but is not at present.
> This will probably be fixed in some future release.
> (I've heard some people suggest that they like the existing behavior,
> but I think if you want a persistent sequence you should make it
> with an explicit CREATE SEQUENCE command.)
> This being the novice list, it should perhaps be pointed out that
> SERIAL isn't a real datatype; it's just syntactic sugar for an
> integer column with a default value expression, like so:
> create table foo (bar serial);
> is equivalent to
> create sequence foo_bar_seq;
> create table foo (bar integer unique not null
> default nextval('foo_bar_seq'));
> If you write it out longhand like this, you can obtain effects
> like having several different tables draw serial numbers from
> the same sequence, which comes in handy sometimes. If you've
> set up an arrangement like that, then indeed you don't want the
> sequence to be dropped just because you dropped one of the tables.
> But ISTM that you should create the sequence manually when you
> are going to do this. SERIAL is supposed to be a canned way of
> setting up the simplest case, and in the simplest case I think
> auto-drop is what you'd want...
> regards, tom lane
I.T. Manager and Systems Administration
911 Emergency Products, Inc.
25 Sixth Avenue North
Saint Cloud, MN 56303
800-863-6911, extension 221
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2001-10-17 00:07:47|
|Subject: Re: postgresql.conf|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-10-16 21:31:32|
|Subject: Re: sequence last_value |