On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 22:43 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-04-29 18:28, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > I still think thatthat there is merit to Michael's idea of removing > > sequence "ownership" (which is just a dependency) when the DEFAULT > > on the column is dropped, but this approach is possibly cleaner. > > I think the proper way to address this would be to create some kind of > dependency between the sequence and the default.
That is certainly true. But that's hard to retrofit into existing databases, so it would probably be a modification that is not backpatchable. Yours, Laurenz Albe
