| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making serial survive pg_dump |
| Date: | 2002-06-13 23:55:52 |
| Message-ID: | 200206131655.52871.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Folks,
> No. IMHO, if we change the naming convention for serial sequences (which
> seems unlikely, except that it might be indirectly affected by changing
> NAMEDATALEN), then we'd *want* the new naming convention to take effect,
> not to have pg_dump scripts force an old naming convention to be
> preserved.
>
> I realize there's a potential for failing to restore the setval()
> information if the name actually does change, but I'm willing to live
> with that.
IMNHO, if this is such a concern for the developer, then what about using
explicitly named sequences? I almost never use the SERIAL data type, because
I feel that I need naming control as well as explicit permissions. SERIAL is
a convenience for those who don't want to be bothered ... serious developers
hould use DEFAULT NEXTVAL('sequence_name').
--
-Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Ford | 2002-06-14 00:10:47 | ATTN: Tom Lane |
| Previous Message | David Ford | 2002-06-13 23:46:16 | Re: PostGres Doubt |