| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Crabtree <peter(dot)crabtree(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal |
| Date: | 2010-05-14 22:11:27 |
| Message-ID: | 14205.1273875087@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Crabtree <peter(dot)crabtree(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If we do this, I'm inclined to think that the extra argument to
>> nextval() should be treated as overriding the base increment rather
>> than specifying a multiplier for it. Other than that nitpick, it
>> sounds like a reasonable thing to allow.
> After giving it some thought, that sounds better. You gain some
> functionality that way (temporarily overriding the interval) and lose
> none.
Well, what you lose is the previous assurance that values of nextval()
were always multiples of the increment. I could see that breaking
applications that are using non-unity increments.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-14 22:20:32 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Peter Crabtree | 2010-05-14 21:58:59 | Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal |