On Sunday 11 January 2004 13:14, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 January 2004 21:31, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> > > I just ran into a dump/restore problem with a bigserial column
> > > on a renamed table.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I've corrected the problem manually, but it does seem like a bug
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > Sounds like a bug. You might want to have a look and see if it's
> > restoring the value of the old or new sequence.
> I think previous discussions on this couldn't decide between not renaming
> the underlying sequence and the one where the sequence is also renamed when
> the table is.
>
> Of course in this instance it's slightly different in that it does sound
> like a bug of the dump/restore process with the not renaming sequence
> behaviour employed.
Yep - it sounds like the column definition is doing one thing, while the
sequence definition is doing the other.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
