From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "James B(dot) Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MySQL to Postgres question |
Date: | 2008-03-23 01:14:44 |
Message-ID: | 20080322181444.3088d7f3@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
"James B. Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> wrote:
> Message-ID: <00e101c88b84$df1bbca0$9d5335e0$(at)r@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am not at all
> clear as to the implications of this statement but it caused me to
> wonder if the primary key values of such tables could be changed
> simply by dumping and reloading the database as in an upgrade between
> versions. Surely this is not the case?
Of course not :). It just has to do with serial being a psuedo type
and thus the actual declaration is just an integer with a default. This
isn't that other database, we don't munge data :P
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH5a8GATb/zqfZUUQRAn4JAJ9xzhFNq+pE4QqX7P1OVQNhe6thqgCgpVQC
M3zEIsj5c+JTo3mU9XOjJqQ=
=RPjl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-03-23 01:28:22 | Re: --enable-thread-safety bug |
Previous Message | James B. Byrne | 2008-03-23 01:01:19 | Re: MySQL to Postgres question |