Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Wasn't this patch rejected? > > > Anyway, what is your opinion on this? > > I thought we'd rejected it. I'm not sure that we'd completely agreed > what the best thing to do is, but what this patch actually does is to > silently remove the dependency link. That is, after > > create table t1 (f1 serial); > alter table t1 alter column f1 drop default; > > t1_f1_seq is still there, but now completely unconnected to t1. > That doesn't seem to me to satisfy the principle of least surprise. > It's certainly not what the TODO item says (reject the DROP DEFAULT). > I think we were considering the alternative of having the DROP DEFAULT > remove the sequence, which probably could be implemented painlessly > with a change in the way we set up the dependency links to start with. > > In any case I don't like this patch: int/bool confusion, use of elog > instead of ereport for a user-facing error message, failure to adhere to > style guidelines for that message, etc. (Although seeing that the error > message is unreachable code, maybe that doesn't matter ;-)) Aside from > the poor coding style, the whole idea of reaching into pg_depend to > remove a single dependency strikes me as a brute-force solution to > a problem that should have a more elegant answer.
Agreed, patch reverted. Thanks for the analysis. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
