Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Sequence bug

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: PgAdmin Hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequence bug
Date: 2004-10-21 14:25:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Dave Page wrote:
> Hmm, it's not though is it, because (assuming a basic new sequence with
> no odd values set), start = 1, min = 1, max = whatever. PostgreSQL will
> error if you try to set it to zero. The closest thing to zero is to set
> it to 1 and unset is_called.
> I would say the least confusing behaviour would be to use
> setval('foo', x, true);

I don't agree.
If you CREATE SEQUENCE foo START 100, nextval will return 100. RESTART 
100 (7.4/8.0) will lead to the same behaviour, so setval('foo', 100, 
false) would be the equivalent.

Actually, currval() would return just 100 too, whether is foo.isCalled 
is true or false, i.e. you can't know from that which value will be 
returned by nextval(), 100 or 101.
We *could* calculate this when displaying the sequence property, todo 
for 1.4?


In response to

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: cvsDate: 2004-10-21 14:34:40
Subject: CVS Commit by andreas: fix SET DEFAULT FK restriction
Previous:From: cvsDate: 2004-10-21 14:18:12
Subject: CVS Commit by andreas: refresh fixes when modifying object from

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group