Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Date: 2006-08-20 18:46:50
Message-ID: 29366.1156099610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Also, if someone restores one table, does the sequence come with it like
> it does now with SERIAL?

Hm, probably not. I do have pg_dump set to force dumping of the
sequence if you try to dump just its table, but it'd be possible to tell
pg_restore (via -l) to load only the table, which could fail. I'm not
too excited about that though; there are plenty of other ways to tell
pg_restore to restore a database subset that won't work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-20 19:08:38 Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2006-08-20 18:46:03 Re: Windows 2000 Support