At 09:16 2/06/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Well, it's only good if the system will get rid of the objects when
>the user drops the owning table. This is true for indexes but AFAIK
>it is not yet true for sequences. So if we go with pg_ prefix now,
>there will be *no* way short of superuser privilege to get rid of the
>sequence object for a deleted table that had a serial field.
>
>Also, this will break pg_dump, which will have no good way to restore
>the state of a serial sequence object. (CREATE SEQUENCE pg_xxx will
>fail, no?)
I know I'm probably out of my depth here, but couldn't pg_dump ignore everything with a pg_* prefix? It can (safely?)
assumeany 'system' structures will be created as a result of some other user-based definition it is dumping?
[If you beat me about the head, I'll shut up]
Philip Warner.
P.S. I also like the idea of creating the 'system' structures with readily and reliably identifiable names, since it
potentiallygives the option of the user choosing to 'hide' them. As a user with about 20000 blobs to load, the output
ofa \d is pretty cumbersome.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422 | _________ \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/