Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Disallow changing/dropping default expression of a SERIAL column > > Wasn't this patch rejected? Your summary is utterly wrong about what > it does, which makes me wonder whether you reviewed it at all. One > would also think that a change in user-visible behavior would merit > at least some documentation diffs.
Well, it seemed it controlled whether dependency allowed you do drop a default sequence for a table. There is something I didn't like about the patch now that I look at it again --- it uses constants 0-2 when it should use defines or something clearer. I thought we had decided that we could not make SERIAL just a macro, and therefore we have to restrict how we allow modifications. If someone wants total control, they should create the DEFAULT manually, but SERIAL was going to be hard-wired. Anyway, what is your opinion on this? Yea, agreed on the documentation issue. That SERIAL distinction, if that is the direction we are going, should be documented. -- 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 6: explain analyze is your friend