Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

Seems this is already a TODO:
* Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tara Piorkowski <tara@vilaj.com> writes:
> > Regardless, my thinking had been that I was looking at an INT with a 
> > DEFAULT set, in which case I think this would be a bonified bug, thus my 
> > report.
> 
> Right --- but *if you'd declared it that way*, the system would have
> reacted in the way you were expecting.  SERIAL sets up dependencies that
> prevent you from dropping the sequence as a separate entity, while an
> INT column with a handmade DEFAULT expression doesn't.
> 
> Ideally, a SERIAL column would completely hide the fact that it's made
> from a sequence and a default expression.  We're not there yet ... but
> 7.3 is closer than ever before.  (It'd be interesting to look at whether
> Rod Taylor's DOMAIN work could help button things up.)
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073