On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Does it make sense to avoid sequence name collisions if applications
> have to refer to sequence names directly? I mean, I can imagine a case
Not at all. Hence the thought that we might create syntax to allow
applications to refer to the table
Does it make sense to avoid sequence name collisions if applications
have to refer to sequence names directly? I mean, I can imagine a case
where a restore would return a sequence name that is different from the
one that dumped it. pg_dump may be hacked to fix that (look up the
sequence for the
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 19:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Might get somewhere by making a special domain thats marked as being
> > serial, and using that in the column.
>
> I recall some discussion last year about making serial et al. into
> domains over int4 and in
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Might get somewhere by making a special domain thats marked as being
> serial, and using that in the column.
I recall some discussion last year about making serial et al. into
domains over int4 and int8, rather than their current utter-hack
implementation.
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 20:47, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hey, with this new ALTER SEQUENCE patch, how about this for an idea:
>
> I submitted a patch to always generate non-colliding index and sequence
> names. Seemed like an excellent idea. However, 7.3 dumps tables like this:
>
> CREATE
Hey, with this new ALTER SEQUENCE patch, how about this for an idea:
I submitted a patch to always generate non-colliding index and sequence
names. Seemed like an excellent idea. However, 7.3 dumps tables like this:
CREATE TABLE blah
a SERIAL
);
SELECT SETVAL('blah_a_seq', 10);
Sort of th
