On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 11:41:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Given that pg_dump does put out GRANT/REVOKE operations on the sequence, > >> it's certainly aware that the sequence exists. I suspect this is just a > >> fixable bug (ie, suppression of output of the sequence CREATE command is > >> being done at the wrong place). > > > I'm trying to think of the solution here. > > One way is to allow the ArchiveEntry to be created (ie, suppress the > discrimination against owned sequences at pg_dump.c:7306) and instead > discriminate at the point of emitting the CREATE or DROP from the > ArchiveEntry ... but not when emitting an ALTER OWNER from it.
I raised a question in my original post that I haven't seen discussed: Is failing to change the sequence ownership a bug in pg_dump, or should changing a table's ownership also change the ownership of implicitly-created sequences? That seems the most reasonable behavior to me: I'd expect that the cases where you wouldn't want this to happen would be the exception, not the rule. DROP TABLE cascades to implictly-created sequences -- why shouldn't ALTER TABLE OWNER TO cascade as well? -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
