Based on this patch review, I am removing the patch from the patch
queue and requiring a resubmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj.M@Sun.COM> writes:
> > Sorry for resubmitting this patch.
> > Just now I found a problem.
> > Instead of assigning initial sequence value to 1,
> > I assign LLONG_MAX to avoid the buffer overflow problem.
> > Please find the current version here.
>
> This patch is a mess. In the first place, it's completely unkosher for
> an application to scribble on a PGresult's contents, even if you do take
> steps like the above to try to make sure there's enough space. But said
> step does not work anyway -- LLONG_MAX might not exist on the client, or
> might exist but be smaller than the server's value.
>
> Another problem with it is it's not schema-aware and not proof against
> quoting requirements for the sequence name (try it with a mixed-case
> sequence name for instance). It also ought to pay some attention to
> the possibility that the SELECT for last_value fails --- quite aside
> from communication failure or such, there might be a permissions problem
> preventing the last_value from being read.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +