Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10954.1026879031@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs? (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> One thing I wondered about here -- is it still possible to use a
> sequence, which is autogenerated by a SERIAL column, as the default
> value for another table?
Sure, same as before.
> If so, does this create another dependency to
> prevent dropping the sequence, and hence the original (creating) table also?
As the code stands, no. The other table's default would look likenextval('first_table_col_seq')
and the dependency deducer only sees nextval() and a string constant
in this.
Someday I'd like to see us support the Oracle-ish syntaxfirst_table_col_seq.nextval
which would expose the sequence reference in a way that allows the
system to understand it during static examination of a query.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: