Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
I get it, mutual dependency because they are both droppable. Added to TODO: * Have DEFAULT dependency track use of sequence, for DROP DEFAULT check --- Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Seems this is already a TODO: >>> * Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval >> >> That's related but not the same issue. > Related in that ALTER TABLE DROP

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Seems this is already a TODO: > > * Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval > > That's related but not the same issue. Related in that ALTER TABLE DROP DEFAULT _doesn't_ see a dependancy for seque

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Seems this is already a TODO: > * Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval That's related but not the same issue. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Seems this is already a TODO: * Have sequence dependency track use of DEFAULT sequences, seqname.nextval --- Tom Lane wrote: > Tara Piorkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Regardless, my thinking had been that I

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-30 Thread Tom Lane
Tara Piorkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Regardless, my thinking had been that I was looking at an INT with a > DEFAULT set, in which case I think this would be a bonified bug, thus my > report. Right --- but *if you'd declared it that way*, the system would have reacted in the way you were

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-30 Thread Tara Piorkowski
Tom Lane wrote: Tara Piorkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: junk=> create table testing junk-> (testing_id serial not null primary key); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence 'testing_testing_id_seq' for SERIAL column 'testing.testing_id' NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will cr

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-30 Thread Tom Lane
Tara Piorkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > junk=> create table testing > junk-> (testing_id serial not null primary key); > NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence > 'testing_testing_id_seq' for SERIAL column 'testing.testing_id' > NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create imp

[HACKERS] Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?

2002-12-30 Thread Tara Piorkowski
I've found a situation that doesn't look correct to me in 7.3.1 (and presumably 7.3 as well). If I alter a column so that it no longer uses a sequence for default values and then try to drop the aforementioned sequence, the dependency checking code does not allow me to drop the sequence on the