From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support retrieving value from any sequence |
Date: | 2015-07-14 15:58:38 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYwh7hM3ZzX7NMBgtd7-3GV-2m2EJ+ztVn_aTtteSo7YA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 14 July 2015 at 16:02, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> The use-case I have in mind is for finding out how close to the 32-bit
>>> integer limit sequences have reached. At the moment, this isn't possible
>>> without creating a custom function to go fetch the last_value from the
>>> specified sequence.
>>>
>>>
>> Why wouldn't you just query the catalog? I was under the impression
>> last said values were extra-transactional so that table should reflect the
>> global state.
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>
> Where in the catalog do you mean?
>
>
In attempting to answer your question I now better understand your
original proposal. Indeed the only way to get the sequence information is
to query it like a table.
This prompts the question: why a function and not (or in addition to) to a
view?
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-14 16:17:06 | Re: Support retrieving value from any sequence |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-14 15:55:31 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |