Thread: database redesign

On 11/8/2013 11:44 AM, zach cruise wrote:
> my response hasn't shown up on
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/upgrading-to-9-3-td5777291.html so
> trying again. sorry if both show up.
>
> anyway, on database reorganization - is it recommended to group all
> sequences and domains under one public schema? or is a sequence tied
> to a table as its counter?
>

I would keep sequences in the same schema as the related table. anything
else is chaotic.   if a domain is used by all the schemas, then putting
it in public makes sense, otherwise, if its just used by one schema, it
should logically be part of that schema.

> what are some replication choices for x64 systems since slony is not
> an option?

the built in streaming replication is the usual first choice.

--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:09 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/2013 11:44 AM, zach cruise wrote:
>> anyway, on database reorganization - is it recommended to group all
>> sequences and domains under one public schema? or is a sequence tied to a
>> table as its counter?
>
> I would keep sequences in the same schema as the related table. anything
> else is chaotic.   if a domain is used by all the schemas, then putting it
> in public makes sense, otherwise, if its just used by one schema, it should
> logically be part of that schema.

I would also like to suggest using serial/bigserial types instead of
integer/bigint + sequence. This will automatically create a sequence
that is depended on the table.

--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA

http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
+1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
gray.ru@gmail.com