On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:42 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Well, yeah. I did this because the patch was somewhat inconsistent when > handling owned sequences - it updated persistence for owned sequences > when persistence for the table changed, expecting to keep them in sync, > but then it also allowed operations that'd break it.
Oops. > But that started a discussion about exactly this, and AFAICS there's > agreement we want to allow the table and owned sequences to have > different persistence values. > > The discussion about the details is still ongoing, but I think it's > clear we'll ditch the restrictions you point out. Great. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
