Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
> > I basically doubt the concept of a single owner. I'd expect a sequence
> > to be dropped from cascaded table dropping, if that was the last usage
> > and dependencies existed. This would probably mean "multiple owners".
>
> That's not going to happen without extensive revisions to our dependency
> mechanisms, which I am not about to undertake now. And I don't see the
> point anyway. If you did have a sequence being used to feed multiple
> tables, why would you want it to go away if the number of tables dropped
> transiently to zero? If you then want to add back another table being
> fed by that sequence, you've lost the state of the sequence. That's the
> same sort of corner case that prompted us to allow zero-column tables,
> ie, the table can continue to exist even if it momentarily has no
> columns.
Agreed. I think it makes sense that if SERIAL auto-created the column,
dropping the table should remove the sequence, but if the sequence was
created manually, drop table should not drop it automatically.
What method will people use to see if a sequence used as a default is
one that was created by SERIAL, and will be dropped by drop table, or
manually created? How does that distinction show up in pg_dump?
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
