sqlobject-discuss

[SQLObject] dropTable and Sequences

[Brad B. <br...@bb...>]

Hi all,

dropTable() does not drop the associated sequence.

I would like to submit a patch for this (with unit tests, of course :),
but should dropTable drop sequences as well, or should there be a
dropSequence() method which must be called explicitly?

Given that createTable implicitly creates sequences, this might suggest
that dropTable should implicitly drop them.

Or perhaps, to be more clear there should be explicit createTable,
createSequence, dropTable and dropSequence methods and then higher-level
create() and destroy() class methods that call these...

What do you guys think?

--
Brad Bollenbach
BBnet.ca

Re: [SQLObject] dropTable and Sequences

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:06, Brad Bollenbach wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> dropTable() does not drop the associated sequence.
> 
> I would like to submit a patch for this (with unit tests, of course :),
> but should dropTable drop sequences as well, or should there be a
> dropSequence() method which must be called explicitly?
> 
> Given that createTable implicitly creates sequences, this might suggest
> that dropTable should implicitly drop them.

Well, createTable and dropTable already have
dropJoinTables/createJoinTables keyword arguments.  So one could add
dropSequences/createSequences to those (default True).  Or maybe the
whole thing should be turned into dropDependent/createDependent

Of course, right now only Postgres uses sequences, and for the most part
that's implicit as well -- SERIAL creates a sequence, but we don't see
it directly.  But, I would also presume that other databases that use
sequences will be added eventually.

  Ian

Re: [SQLObject] dropTable and Sequences

[Luke O. <lu...@me...>]

Hello again everyone! Just an addendum here, Postgres 7.3+ will automatically
drop sequences created using SERIAL.

- Luke

Quoting Ian Bicking <ia...@co...>:

> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:06, Brad Bollenbach wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > dropTable() does not drop the associated sequence.
> >
> > I would like to submit a patch for this (with unit tests, of course :),
> > but should dropTable drop sequences as well, or should there be a
> > dropSequence() method which must be called explicitly?
> >
> > Given that createTable implicitly creates sequences, this might suggest
> > that dropTable should implicitly drop them.
>
> Well, createTable and dropTable already have
> dropJoinTables/createJoinTables keyword arguments.  So one could add
> dropSequences/createSequences to those (default True).  Or maybe the
> whole thing should be turned into dropDependent/createDependent
>
> Of course, right now only Postgres uses sequences, and for the most part
> that's implicit as well -- SERIAL creates a sequence, but we don't see
> it directly.  But, I would also presume that other databases that use
> sequences will be added eventually.
>
>   Ian
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> sqlobject-discuss mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
>


--
The Pursuit of Counterfactual Histories