Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >> I created a sequence using SERIAL when I created a table. I used the
> >> same sequence for another table by setting a column default to
> >> nextval(sequence).
> >>
> >> I deleted the first table. The sequence was deleted too, leaving the
> >> default of the second table referring to a non-existent sequence.
>
> > This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something we'd
> > like to release.
>
> We will be releasing it whether we like it or not, because
> nextval('foo') doesn't expose any visible dependency on sequence foo.

Awww rats.

<snip>
> 7.3 breaks no existing schemas, because older schemas will be dumped
> as separate CREATE SEQUENCE and CREATE TABLE ... DEFAULT nextval()
> commands.

Ok.

Thanks Tom. :)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> regards, tom lane

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi