From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |
Date: | 2006-08-20 15:31:09 |
Message-ID: | 27407.1156087869@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If we were implementing serial from scratch, I would be arguing that the
> underlying sequence should be merely an implementation detail that should
> be totally hidden, and sequences used explicitly should be kept as a
> separate concept. Then many of these problems simply wouldn't exist. I
> realise that might be difficult to get to now :-(
Well, we're not in a green field anymore :-(. In any case there would
be some serious practical disadvantages in trying to hide the underlying
sequence fully:
* you couldn't use ALTER SEQUENCE, eg to adjust the sequence's CYCLE
property, which seems like a useful thing to do;
* permissions management would get interesting too;
* how's pg_dump going to access the sequence to restore its correct
count value etc?
I think we'd end up building a lot of facilities parallel to those that
exist for "ordinary" sequences, and then this doesn't seem like such a
clean solution anymore...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2006-08-20 15:48:11 | Re: Coverity reports looking good |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-20 15:10:55 | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |