Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200207170529.g6H5TQL29386@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do we still need these NOTICEs? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > > One thing I wondered about here -- is it still possible to use a > > sequence, which is autogenerated by a SERIAL column, as the default > > value for another table? > > Sure, same as before. > > > If so, does this create another dependency to > > prevent dropping the sequence, and hence the original (creating) table also? > > As the code stands, no. The other table's default would look like > nextval('first_table_col_seq') > and the dependency deducer only sees nextval() and a string constant > in this. > > Someday I'd like to see us support the Oracle-ish syntax > first_table_col_seq.nextval > which would expose the sequence reference in a way that allows the > system to understand it during static examination of a query. OK, so creator tracks it, and referencers, even in DEFAULT, don't. Good to know and probably something we need to point out in the release notes. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: