Re: serial drop error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: serial drop error
Date: 2004-12-06 18:50:32
Message-ID: 5153.1102359032@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

"Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> I can see the point of *not* dropping the sequence unless the
> owning column is dropped. I just don't see the point of disabling the
> useful ability to decouple the sequence-column association, and dropping
> the default seems the most reasonable way to do that.

Where we part ways is on the claim that this is useful. As I said
before, if you think they are independent objects then you should create
'em that way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kristofer Munn 2004-12-06 19:25:14 pg_dump: schema with OID XXXXXXXXX does not exist
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-12-06 18:22:35 Re: "invalid memory alloc request size <n>" in deferred trigger causes transaction to fail, but the backend keeps running