Tom Lane wrote:
> Glen Parker <glenebob@nwlink.com> writes:
>> For some reason I got into my head the notion that a sequence could be
>> dropped even if reference by a field default. This seems pretty silly now.
>
> It was true once upon a time, but we have an enforcement mechanism now
> to catch that. Did you find the default you needed to get rid of?
> That 2604 row should be it.
I did find it. 2604 is "pg_attrref", which now that you point it out
makes a certain amount of sense, but I would have had no idea what to do
with that an hour ago.
Thanks :-)
-Glen