On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:09 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/8/2013 11:44 AM, zach cruise wrote: >> anyway, on database reorganization - is it recommended to group all >> sequences and domains under one public schema? or is a sequence tied to a >> table as its counter? > > I would keep sequences in the same schema as the related table. anything > else is chaotic. if a domain is used by all the schemas, then putting it > in public makes sense, otherwise, if its just used by one schema, it should > logically be part of that schema. I would also like to suggest using serial/bigserial types instead of integer/bigint + sequence. This will automatically create a sequence that is depended on the table. -- Kind regards, Sergey Konoplev PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp +1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979 gray.ru@xxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
