| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) |
| Date: | 2020-03-21 17:13:38 |
| Message-ID: | 09f5902b-69f9-c8fd-f26b-dd9d3503703e@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3/21/20 12:02 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/20/20 8:13 PM, pabloa98 wrote:
>>> Nothing I saw that said int could not become bigint.
>>> My bad. The code cannot be a bigint. Or it could be a bigint between 1 to 99999999 :)
>> Aah, that was the counter Peter was talking about. I missed that.
>>
>> As to below that is going to require more thought.
>>
> Still no word on the actual requirement. As someone who believes consecutive numbers on digital invoices is simply a mistaken interpretation of the paper based system, I suspect a similar error here. But again we haven’t really heard, far as I know. Something really fishy about 99999999.
Why? "Print" and "screen" forms have all sorts of practical restrictions
like this.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alastair McKinley | 2020-03-21 17:25:31 | Explain says 8 workers planned, only 1 executed |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2020-03-21 17:02:41 | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) |