Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence

Neil Conway wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something
> > we'd like to release.
>
> It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is
> grounds for changing the release schedule.

Hey, I'm no fan of slowing the release schedule either.

Bug this is definitely sounding like a bug.

> > No real issue with the nicety for newbies, but am very concerned
> > about the lack of a dependancy check here.
>
> Well, how would you suggest we fix this? ISTM this is partially a
> result of the fact that we don't produce dependancy information for
> function bodies. While it might be possible to do so (in 7.4) for
> certain types of functions (e.g. for functions defined in SQL,
> PL/PgSQL, etc.), I can't see a general solution (e.g. for functions
> defined in C).

Absolutely *no* idea.

> And adding random hacks to get specific functions (e.g. nextval()) to
> work does not strike me as a very good idea.

Agreed. Random hacks aren't always a good approach.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi