From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | "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 13:27:03 |
Message-ID: | 3819.24.211.165.134.1156080423.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Almost everything I just said is already how it works today; the
>> difference is that today you do not have the option to drop t1 without
>> dropping the sequence, because there's no (non-hack) way to remove the
>> dependency.
>>
> As far as I understand your proposal I like it, but I'd like to insure
> that the situation where a sequence is used by multiple tables is
> handled correctly. There _are_ databases that reuse a sequence for
> multiple serial-like columns, and pgadmin supports this (including a
> pg_depend insert, which would need a version dependent fix).
>
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 :-(
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-08-20 13:49:24 | Coverity reports looking good |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-08-20 13:09:24 | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |