Tom Lane wrote:
> > I like it.
>
> Perhaps eventually we should wind up using names like "pg_pkey_8381292"
> but I think this ought to wait until the system retains an explicit
> representation of the relationship between these indexes/sequences and
> the owning table, and until we think through the consequences for
> pg_dump. For now we had better stick to unprivileged names.
Of course! I didn't meant to do anything on it for v6.5.
Implementing automatic sequence deletion if they got created
due to serial fields is definitely feature. And I agree that
all the odds and ends have to get discussed down first.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
