Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC
Date
Msg-id 25958.970153268@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
Responses Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC
List pgsql-hackers
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> OK. Given the discussion of 'select nextval', do you know if 'select
> setval' will set the is_called flag?

Looks like it does, both by experiment and by reading the code.
So if you issue a setval() you don't need a nextval() as well.

However you still have the problem that you can't recreate the
state of a virgin (never-nextval'd) sequence this way.  The
existing pg_dump code is correct, in that it will reproduce the
state of a sequence whether virgin or not.  A data-only reload
would fail to make that guarantee unless you drop and recreate
the sequence.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC
Next
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump and sequences - RFC