Michael Paquier wrote: > Hm. Is symmetry an important properly for sequences? It seems to me > that if we map with the data types we had better use the MIN values > instead for consistency. So the concept of this patch is rather weird > and would introduce an exception with the rest of the system just for > sequences.
Besides there's a related compatibility break in that, if a sequence is created in an existing release like this: CREATE SEQUENCE s MINVALUE -9223372036854775808; And then it's dumped/reloaded on a backend that has the patch applied, it fails with: MINVALUE (-9223372036854775808) is too large for sequence data type bigint This value (-2^63) is legal in current releases, although it happens to be off-by-1 compared to the default minvalue for a sequence going downwards. Arguably it's the default that is weird. I've started the thread at [1] to discuss whether it makes sense in the first place that our CREATE SEQUENCE takes -(2^63)+1 as the default minvalue rather than -2^63, independantly of this patch. I think the current patch transforms this oddity into an actual issue by making it impossible to reach the real minimum of a sequence with regard to the type tied to it (-2^15 for smallint, -2^31 for int, -2^63 for bigint), whereas in HEAD you can still adjust minvalue to fix the off-by-1 against the bigint range, if you happen to care about it, the only problem being that you first need to figure this out by yourself. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4865a75e-f490-4e9b-b8e7-3d78694c3...@manitou-mail.org Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
