| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Glen Edmonds <glen(dot)edmonds(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17428: last_value incorrect for uninitialized sequence |
| Date: | 2022-03-07 15:23:42 |
| Message-ID: | 192171.1646666622@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Glen Edmonds <glen(dot)edmonds(at)gmail(dot)com> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-03-07 15:40:33 | Re: BUG #17428: last_value incorrect for uninitialized sequence |
| Previous Message | Glen Edmonds | 2022-03-07 15:14:44 | Re: BUG #17428: last_value incorrect for uninitialized sequence |