> I think there are two completely different issues here: one is what
> name to use for the auto-generated sequence, and the other is whether
> (when) to drop the sequence if the table is dropped. Fixing the
> latter issue would reduce but not entirely eliminate the issue of
> name collisions.
Hmmm? No way - see below.
> IIRC, the major objection to the notion of adding random hash characters
> to the auto-generated names was that people wanted to be able to predict
> the names. There was a long discussion about this a couple years back
> when we settled on the present algorithm. Please search the archives
> a bit if you want to re-open that issue.
I will search the archives, but I'll explain my thoughts here a well.
Well, what's the problem with appending a number - that's how index names
get generated.
This is my horrible schema that forced me to abandon using SERIAL in favour
of explicit CREATE SEQUENCE statements:
BEGIN;
-- Categories of foods
CREATE TABLE medidiets_categories_foods (category_id SERIAL,description varchar(255) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY(category_id)
);
-- Categories of recipes
CREATE TABLE medidiets_categories_rec (category_id SERIAL,description varchar(255) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY(category_id)
);
COMMIT;
Both of these SERIALs are given the same name - it's a real pain.
Chris
