Re: Notes about int8 sequences

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Allan Engelhardt <allane(at)cybaea(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Notes about int8 sequences
Date: 2001-08-06 21:33:01
Message-ID: 24672.997133581@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Allan Engelhardt <allane(at)cybaea(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not really a hacker, but why couldn't you simply change nextval to
> return int8 in all cases?

Hmm. That's a possibility. There's some potential for trouble if an
application is expecting an int4 result from "SELECT nextval()" and
gets int8 instead, but if we think we could live with that...

Actually, if we thought we could live with that, my inclination would be
to blow off int4-based sequences altogether, and just redefine SEQUENCE
objects as operating on INT8. Interesting thought, eh?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Giles Lean 2001-08-06 21:46:48 Re: Possible solution for LIKE optimization
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-08-06 21:27:02 Use int8 for int4/int2 aggregate accumulators?