Peter Crabtree <peter.crabtree@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we do this, I'm inclined to think that the extra argument to
>> nextval() should be treated as overriding the base increment rather
>> than specifying a multiplier for it. Other than that nitpick, it
>> sounds like a reasonable thing to allow.
> After giving it some thought, that sounds better. You gain some
> functionality that way (temporarily overriding the interval) and lose
> none.
Well, what you lose is the previous assurance that values of nextval()
were always multiples of the increment. I could see that breaking
applications that are using non-unity increments.
regards, tom lane