On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm willing to bend that to the extent of saying that COR leaves in place > subsidiary properties that you might add *with additional statements* --- > for example, foreign keys for a table, or privilege grants for a role. > But the properties of the role itself have to be predictable from the COR > statement, or it's useless.
+1. >> Where this is a bit more interesting is in the case of sequences, where >> resetting the sequence to zero may cause further inserts into an >> existing table to fail. > > Yeah. Sequences do have contained data, which makes COR harder to define > --- that's part of the reason why we have CINE not COR for tables, and > maybe we have to do the same for sequences. The point being exactly > that if you use CINE, you're implicitly accepting that you don't know > the ensuing state fully. Yeah. I think CINE is more sensible than COR for sequences, for precisely the reason that they do have contained data (even if it's basically only one value). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
