Re: BUG #5629: ALTER SEQUENCE foo START execute a RESTART

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. +