Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
| От | Andreas Pflug |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 44E85F04.8090506@pse-consulting.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Almost everything I just said is already how it works today; the > difference is that today you do not have the option to drop t1 without > dropping the sequence, because there's no (non-hack) way to remove the > dependency. > As far as I understand your proposal I like it, but I'd like to insure that the situation where a sequence is used by multiple tables is handled correctly. There _are_ databases that reuse a sequence for multiple serial-like columns, and pgadmin supports this (including a pg_depend insert, which would need a version dependent fix). Regards, Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: