| From: | Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 1.10 beta 1 |
| Date: | 2009-03-12 09:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | 49B8D1AE.9020002@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi Guillaume,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Ashesh Vashi a écrit :
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Please find the patch for the Dependency bug
> I just checked this patch. I find disturbing that it finds a dependency
> to a nextval function instead of a dependency to the sequence. Moreover,
> the first table has two dependencies : on the sequence and on the
> nextval function of this sequence.
I think - you're right.
But, I could not find the direct dependency of the sequence on the table.
> This patch is a first step, but I think we need to go further.
Definitely, even I felt the same.
I need some guidance for it.
Could you please help on this?
--
Regards,
Ashesh Vashi
EnterpriseDB INDIA: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2009-03-12 09:37:36 | Re: 1.10 beta 1 |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2009-03-12 09:02:42 | Re: 1.10 beta 1 |