Re: BUG #17428: last_value incorrect for uninitialized sequence

Glen Edmonds  writes:
> The problem really is that the two states of not initialized and post first
> usage are indistinguishable (both return 1), but the sequence next value is
> different.

They're not indistinguishable: if you look at the is_called flag
you'll see that it changes.

> ie it’s a reasonable expectation that the next value is
> last_value + 1. IMHO violating this makes it a bug.

You can call it that if you like, but it's operating as designed
and documented.  I fear it's about twenty years too late to propose
a redesign.

			regards, tom lane