I see no reason why a second SERIAL column would be needed. As in the
example for creating tbl_c, when you have a SERIAL as a primary key,
the foreign keys that reference it should be int4 not SERIAL.
jeff
Jeff Daugherty
Database Systems Engineer
Great Bridge LLC
will trillich wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:59:31AM +0200, Morten Primdahl wrote:
>
>>> \d tbl_c_id_seq
>>>
>>> if it is not there, you can create it yourself
>>
>> Thanks, the sequence was not there. Just puzzled me that
>> when creating tbl_c, I get:
>>
>> test=# CREATE TABLE tbl_c
>> (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
>> data VARCHAR(50),
>> a SERIAL CONSTRAINT a_ref REFERENCES tbl_a(id),
>> b SERIAL CONSTRAINT b_ref REFERENCES tbl_b(id)
>> );
>
>
> is there any paradigm wherein TWO serial values for one table
> might possible be useful? (since serial is really "int default
> nextval('sequence_seq')" how can the second serial be anything
> but redundant?)
