From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mark Morgan Lloyd <markMLl(dot)pgsql-general(at)telemetry(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE and SERIAL |
Date: | 2009-10-30 21:20:15 |
Message-ID: | 22056.1256937615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers pgsql-general |
Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I can see why you wouldn't expect it to end up sharing the same
> sequence. If you were to manually create a sequence and wanted to use
> it on a column, you probably wouldn't bother using the SERIAL
> datatype, but use integer instead. So really since we know the first
> table has a datatype of SERIAL on one of its columns, we might instead
> wish to have it create a new implicit sequence instead of merely
> converting it to an INTEGER datatype and adding a default constraint
> to the same sequence as the original table.
Thinking of SERIAL as a type is your first mistake ;-). It is not a
type. It is a shorthand for making a sequence and sticking a suitable
default on a plain integer column. So what LIKE sees is an integer
column with a default, and it copies that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2009-10-30 21:37:05 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE and SERIAL |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2009-10-30 19:17:05 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE and SERIAL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-30 21:25:43 | Re: Rewriting select statements |
Previous Message | Scott Bailey | 2009-10-30 20:09:30 | Re: Absolute value of intervals |