On Sunday 11 January 2004 13:14, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Richard Huxton wrote: > > On Saturday 10 January 2004 21:31, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > > > I just ran into a dump/restore problem with a bigserial column > > > on a renamed table. > > > > [snip] > > > > > I've corrected the problem manually, but it does seem like a bug > > > somewhere. > > > > Sounds like a bug. You might want to have a look and see if it's > > restoring the value of the old or new sequence.
> I think previous discussions on this couldn't decide between not renaming > the underlying sequence and the one where the sequence is also renamed when > the table is. > > Of course in this instance it's slightly different in that it does sound > like a bug of the dump/restore process with the not renaming sequence > behaviour employed. Yep - it sounds like the column definition is doing one thing, while the sequence definition is doing the other. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
