Andreas Pflug wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Almost everything I just said is already how it works today; the >> difference is that today you do not have the option to drop t1 without >> dropping the sequence, because there's no (non-hack) way to remove the >> dependency. >> > As far as I understand your proposal I like it, but I'd like to insure > that the situation where a sequence is used by multiple tables is > handled correctly. There _are_ databases that reuse a sequence for > multiple serial-like columns, and pgadmin supports this (including a > pg_depend insert, which would need a version dependent fix). >
If we were implementing serial from scratch, I would be arguing that the underlying sequence should be merely an implementation detail that should be totally hidden, and sequences used explicitly should be kept as a separate concept. Then many of these problems simply wouldn't exist. I realise that might be difficult to get to now :-( cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
