Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)
От | Ron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 09f5902b-69f9-c8fd-f26b-dd9d3503703e@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) (Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 3/21/20 12:02 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: >> On Mar 21, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote: >> >> On 3/20/20 8:13 PM, pabloa98 wrote: >>> Nothing I saw that said int could not become bigint. >>> My bad. The code cannot be a bigint. Or it could be a bigint between 1 to 99999999 :) >> Aah, that was the counter Peter was talking about. I missed that. >> >> As to below that is going to require more thought. >> > Still no word on the actual requirement. As someone who believes consecutive numbers on digital invoices is simply a mistakeninterpretation of the paper based system, I suspect a similar error here. But again we haven’t really heard, faras I know. Something really fishy about 99999999. Why? "Print" and "screen" forms have all sorts of practical restrictions like this. -- Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: