Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence
Date
Msg-id 200211211914.gALJEuZ21767@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence  (Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I deleted the first table.  The sequence was deleted too, leaving the
> default of the second table referring to a non-existent sequence.
> 
> 
> Could this be a TODO item in 7.4, to add a dependency check when a
> sequence is set as the default without being created at the same time?

Added to TODO:

* Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval      

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error when comparing an integer to an empty string.
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Why an array in pg_group?