Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andreas Pflug
Subject Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Date
Msg-id 44E85F04.8090506@pse-consulting.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: OTRS
Next
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N