Re: Off-by-one oddity in minval for decreasing sequences

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Off-by-one oddity in minval for decreasing sequences
Date: 2017-01-12 20:12:57
Message-ID: c7521c34-38f2-26a5-1f60-14ab2d4f7300@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/10/17 8:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This seems like a sensible argument to me, but maybe somebody's got a
> contrary viewpoint?

I suspect the number of users that use negative sequence values is so
small that this is unlikely to be noticed. I can't think of any risk to
"closing the hole" that you can end up with now. I agree it makes sense
to sen the minimum value correctly.

Not sure if this necessitates changes in pg_upgrade...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2017-01-12 20:21:40 Re: GSoC 2017
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2017-01-12 19:52:29 Re: remove floats from bootstrap scanner/parser