| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ryan Bradetich <rbrad(at)hpb50023(dot)boi(dot)hp(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Sequences.... |
| Date: | 1999-03-16 03:23:28 |
| Message-ID: | 14901.921554608@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> As long as a sequence can point to more than
>> one table/column combination.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me --- as far as I understood Ryan,
the new table he's proposing would only contain entries for sequences
created to implement SERIAL keywords. For those, I think there should
indeed be a 1-1 mapping between parent table (+column) and resulting
sequence.
But yeah, don't break usage of ordinary standalone sequences ;-).
Another thing to think about is what it's going to take to dump and
reload this structure in pg_dump. We need to be able to reconstitute
the system tables' contents and the current value of the SERIAL sequence
after a reload.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-03-16 03:24:25 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq and SPI |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-03-16 03:15:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Developers Globe (FINAL) |