From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Sequences/defaults and pg_dump |
Date: | 2006-02-09 20:23:59 |
Message-ID: | 4412.1139516639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The only thing we'd lose is that dropping a column
>> originally declared as serial wouldn't implicitly drop the sequence.
> Wasn't that the primary purpose that the main coder for dependencies did
> the work for?
My recollection is that the dependency for serials was added as an
afterthought without too much consideration of the long-term
implications. It was a cheap way of sort-of solving an immediate
problem using a mechanism that we were putting in place anyway.
But what we've got now is a misbegotten cross between the theory that
a SERIAL is a unitary object you mustn't muck with the innards of,
and the theory that SERIAL is just a macro that sets up an initial
state you can ALTER to your heart's content later.
IMHO we should make a choice between those plans and stick to it,
not add more and more infrastructure to let you ALTER things you
shouldn't be altering. Either a SERIAL is a black box or it isn't.
If it is not to be a black box, we need to reduce rather than increase
the amount of hidden semantics.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chandra Sekhar Surapaneni | 2006-02-09 20:31:36 | Re: PgAdmin3 for Suse AMD64 |
Previous Message | Mike G. | 2006-02-09 20:21:16 | Update table with data from another table |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-09 20:45:42 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-09 20:16:29 | Re: Upcoming re-releases |