Re: dropping an unused sequence?
| От | Jaime Casanova |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: dropping an unused sequence? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | c2d9e70e0601030933o7c3b6956we78b2164c1f239d5@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: dropping an unused sequence? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-novice |
On 1/2/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > <me@alternize.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 ;)
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: