On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:52 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:04 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At best CREATE SEQUENCE .... START ... RESTART ... can be a shorthand > > for CREATE SEQUENCE ... START; ALTER SEQUENCE ... RESTART run back to > > back. So it looks useful but in rare cases. > > I personally feel that let's not mix up START and RESTART in CREATE > SEQUENCE. If required, users will run ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART > separately, that will be a clean way. > > > Said all that I agree that if we are supporting CREATE SEQUENCE ... > > RESTART then we should document it, correctly. If that's not the > > intention, we should disallow RESTART with CREATE SEQUENCE. > > As I mentioned upthread, it's better to disallow (throw error) if > RESTART is specified for CREATE SEQUENCE. Having said that, I would > like to hear from others. >
FWIW, +1. The RESTART clause in the CREATE SEQUENCE doesn't make sense to me, it should be restricted, IMO. Regards, Amul
