On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:42 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Well, yeah. I did this because the patch was somewhat inconsistent when
> handling owned sequences - it updated persistence for owned sequences
> when persistence for the table changed, expecting to keep them in sync,
> but then it also allowed operations that'd break it.
Oops.
> But that started a discussion about exactly this, and AFAICS there's
> agreement we want to allow the table and owned sequences to have
> different persistence values.
>
> The discussion about the details is still ongoing, but I think it's
> clear we'll ditch the restrictions you point out.
Great.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com