Re: Sequence bug
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sequence bug |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4306D64@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Sequence bug ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sequence bug
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 21 October 2004 14:54 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PgAdmin Hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Sequence bug > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > Hmm, it works OK (thanks), but not as you would expect. > With setval's > > third arg = false, you can set the sequence value to 1, which is > > displayed as expected as the 'Current Value', but then a 'SELECT > > nextval()' also returns 1 which is not what you would expect > > (especially if you are not the same user, or you forgot > what you did earlier). > > But this is consistent with ALTER SEQUENCE ... RESTART ...; I > just checked. Dunno, didn't check that, but it's certainly not what the novice user might expect. I.e. Current val = 1, nextval = 1 !! > > Maybe it's better not to try to allow resetting to 0 with 7,3? > > Why not? 0 sounds like a legal int value to me... Hmm, it's not though is it, because (assuming a basic new sequence with no odd values set), start = 1, min = 1, max = whatever. PostgreSQL will error if you try to set it to zero. The closest thing to zero is to set it to 1 and unset is_called. I would say the least confusing behaviour would be to use setval('foo', x, true); If the user tries to set x >= minimum, or use: setval('foo', minimum, false); If x == (minimum - increment) Regards, Dave
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: