Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] Off-by-one oddity in minval for decreasing sequences
On 1/6/17 2:15 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: > I notice that there's a preexisting > oddity in the fact that sequences created with a negative increment > in current releases initialize the minval to -(2^63)+1 instead of -2^63, > the actual lowest value for a bigint. I think that had to do with that we had to play games to work around the lack of proper int64 support, and various weird code has developed over time because of that. I think we should fix it if we can. The attached patch fixes the default minimum value to use the proper int64 min value. With this patch, when upgrading with pg_dump, descending sequences with the previous default minimum value would be kept with that now-not-default value. We could alternative adjust those sequences to the new default value. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/6/17 2:15 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: >> I notice that there's a preexisting >> oddity in the fact that sequences created with a negative increment >> in current releases initialize the minval to -(2^63)+1 instead of -2^63, >> the actual lowest value for a bigint. > > I think that had to do with that we had to play games to work around the > lack of proper int64 support, and various weird code has developed over > time because of that. I think we should fix it if we can. > > The attached patch fixes the default minimum value to use the proper > int64 min value. > > With this patch, when upgrading with pg_dump, descending sequences with > the previous default minimum value would be kept with that > now-not-default value. We could alternative adjust those sequences to > the new default value. This patch looks acceptable to me. -- Michael