Well, if it's not going to be fixed, then at least the docs should be revised to warn all 8.4+ users to avoid this command and, if it's really needed, always check the server version before using the ALTER SEQUENCE ... START command, once it has a potentially hazardous bug that interprets it as a RESTART in 8.3 version and below.
2010/9/7 Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > 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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > -- Atenciosamente, Alexsander da Rosa Linux User #113925 "Extremismo na defesa da liberdade não é defeito. Moderação na busca por justiça não é virtude." -- Barry Goldwater
