Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27371.1041309416@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x? (Tara Piorkowski <tara@vilaj.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: