---------- Original Message -----------
From: Helen Borrie <helebor@...>

> Backup/restore obviously does fix the problem that you're making by
> (apparently) letting an end-user app create generators. Is there any
> good reason to do it this way? If you must let users create metadata,
> with identity triggers and all, why not just have one generic 64-bit
> generator that they all use?
>
> ./heLen

------- End of Original Message -------

I've never much cared for sharing generators between tables, though I agree
there's nothing explicitly wrong with it.

In my case, I'm the only "user" generating these database objects, indirectly
via the tools I wrote. I don't expect an infinite proliferation of these, as I
have at least some idea of the end scope of this workflow project. I may just
change my code so it actually checks to see if a generator exists before it
tries to recreate it, avoid the problem that way.

Any idea if I'd have a similar issue from attempting to (and ignoring/logging
failures) create tables / add fields that already exist? My scripts just care
about making sure my tables all at least match the minimum definition in my
meta schema, the easiest way was to just attempt and fail.

Thanks!

-Philip