| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, 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 20:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | fcb0a463-fb3b-8a0f-c3ef-e1d929cf369d@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/12/2017 03:12 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> 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...
FTR I used them extensively in $previous_job to get out of a nasty problem.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2017-01-12 21:59:05 | Re: Retiring from the Core Team |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-01-12 20:27:27 | Re: GSoC 2017 |