From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alexsander Rosa <alexsander(dot)rosa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5629: ALTER SEQUENCE foo START execute a RESTART |
Date: | 2010-09-07 23:28:20 |
Message-ID: | 201009072328.o87NSKd03622@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alexsander Rosa wrote:
> What about the risk of using ALTER SEQUENCE ... START N in a mixed
> environment? In the 8.4.x servers it will work as designed but in the 8.3.x
> (and below) servers, instead of issuing an error it will CORRUPT the
> sequence value without notice. I understand the point of keeping a
> (mis)feature when it's harmless or at least not amibiguous, but this is not
> the case here. While the 8.4 behavior -- the correct one -- is a mere
> configuration of little consequence, the 8.3 (and below) behavior is an
> unexpected RESET. I think it's safer to require the people that was using
> old versions with the wrong spell to fix their code than put lots of users
> of the current version in risk of using a potentially disastrous command --
> when executed in previous versions. Should all 8.4.x (and beyond) users be
> forced to check server version before issuing this command?
Should all 8.3 users be required to retest their applications after a
minor upgrade? No.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 23:30:33 | Re: BUG #5646: missing chunk number 0 for toast |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-07 21:42:50 | Re: BUG #5646: missing chunk number 0 for toast |