Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B414760E8 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from jester.senspire.com (CPE00508b028d7d-CM00803785c5e0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.103.51.175]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195D247609B for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jester.senspire.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAKNKcst038408; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:20:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rbt@rbt.ca) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence From: Rod Taylor To: Oliver Elphick Cc: Robert Treat , PostgreSQL-development In-Reply-To: <1037830378.24840.40.camel@linda> References: <92c0776e.0211180745.49911131@posting.google.com> <1037782392.29678.88.camel@linda> <1037828113.23925.101.camel@camel> <1037830378.24840.40.camel@linda> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1037834437.38320.4.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 20 Nov 2002 18:20:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/833 X-Sequence-Number: 32049 This requires changing the nextval() function to be an attribute of the sequence. ie. sequence.nextval and sequence.currval to deal with the sequence. It should also be on the todo list. On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 17:12, Oliver Elphick wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 21:35, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 03:53, Oliver Elphick wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 15:45, Thomas Aichinger wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I recently installed pg 7.2.3 on my linux box and discovered that > > > > there are some problems with datatype serial and sequence. > > > > > > > > 1.) If you create a table with a datatype serial, the corrsponding > > > > sequence will be created, but if you drop the table the sequence is > > > > not dropped. > > > > > > This is fixed in 7.3 > > > > > > > out of curiosity, do you know the logic that implements this fix? I have > > a couple of tables that use the same sequence; I'm wondering if dropping > > one of the tables removes the sequence or if I have to drop all tables > > before the sequence is removed > > I just tried it. > > I created a sequence using SERIAL when I created a table. I used the > same sequence for another table by setting a column default to > nextval(sequence). > > I deleted the first table. The sequence was deleted too, leaving the > default of the second table referring to a non-existent sequence. > > > Could this be a TODO item in 7.4, to add a dependency check when a > sequence is set as the default without being created at the same time? -- Rod Taylor