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 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 /
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 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 int8,
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 TABLE
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
