Chris Angelico wrote > > I would recommend using an explicit sequence object rather than > relying on odd behavior like this; for instance, if you now drop > public.tbl, the sequence will be dropped too. However, what you have > there is going to be pretty close to the same result anyway. > Oops, thanks for the warning. Any means to prevent accidently dropping the sequence by deleting the corresponding "root"-table? What do you mean with "explicit sequence object"? An own sequence for each table per schema? Chris Angelico wrote > > I think it's possible > to reset a sequence object to start producing lower numbers again, > while your table still has some higher numbers in it (of course being > careful not to get pkey collisions). > Yes, this is definitely possible (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-altersequence.html) -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Best-way-to-create-unique-primary-keys-across-schemas-tp5165043p5428997.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
