Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Date: 2006-08-20 13:09:24
Message-ID: 44E85F04.8090506@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Almost everything I just said is already how it works today; the
> difference is that today you do not have the option to drop t1 without
> dropping the sequence, because there's no (non-hack) way to remove the
> dependency.
>
As far as I understand your proposal I like it, but I'd like to insure
that the situation where a sequence is used by multiple tables is
handled correctly. There _are_ databases that reuse a sequence for
multiple serial-like columns, and pgadmin supports this (including a
pg_depend insert, which would need a version dependent fix).

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-08-20 13:27:03 Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2006-08-20 11:26:57 Re: OTRS