| From: | Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | me(at)alternize(dot)com, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: dropping an unused sequence? |
| Date: | 2006-01-03 17:33:35 |
| Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0601030933o7c3b6956we78b2164c1f239d5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On 1/2/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> <me(at)alternize(dot)com> writes:
> > during table creation i mistakenly had a SERIAL instead of INTEGER type for
> > a value. i removed the default value (nextval....) for this field. still i
> > can't drop the old sequence:
>
> Ideally, SERIAL would prevent you from munging the default expression,
> too. What you are doing represents unwarranted tampering with the
> implementation of a data type...
>
> Having said that, if you remove the relevant entry in pg_depend then
> you'll be able to drop the sequence.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
why not let ALTER TYPE drop the sequence if one exists?
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pres | 2006-01-03 20:01:05 | which database to login to to create global users? |
| Previous Message | Sean Davis | 2006-01-03 15:14:42 | Re: Replacing Tables |