From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
cc: erwaman@gmail.com, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #18618: pg_upgrade from 14 to 15+ fails for unlogged table
 with identity column
In-reply-to: <1337459.1726521069@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <18618-d4eb26d669ed110a@postgresql.org>
 <1221229.1726507710@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1337459.1726521069@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:11:09 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1680622.1726602973.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:56:13 -0400
Message-ID: <1680623.1726602973@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1680623.1726602973%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
>> The only alternative I can see is to extend the ALTER TABLE ADD
>> GENERATED syntax to allow correct specification of the sequence's
>> LOGGED/UNLOGGED status to begin with.  While cleaner, that would be
>> a lot more work and probably result in compatibility problems for
>> normal uses of pg_dump (where the output might get loaded into a
>> server version that lacks the syntax extension).

> So we have to do it like that, and it seems not that bad, especially
> if we follow the lead of the SEQUENCE NAME option and don't bother
> to document this stuff.  (I don't think that's a great precedent,
> but I didn't change it here.)

Pushed with a bit of further polishing, including adding that
missing documentation.

			regards, tom lane