On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hello > > A customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres 10 on a > trial upgrade from 9.6. They were using sequences from SERIAL columns a > little unorthodoxly, and their stuff stopped working: essentially, they > hacked the default expression so that it'd automatically use negative > numbers when the sequence reached INT_MAX. Since pg10 changed sequences > to stop emitting values at that point, it raised an error rather than > emit the negative numbers. > > (In 9.6 and prior, the sequence would emit values past INT_MAX; it was > the column that raised the error. In pg10 things were changed so that > it is now the sequence that raises the error.) > > My proposal now is to document this issue in the Postgres 10 release > notes. "It's a little late for that!" I hear you say, but keep this in > mind: many users have *not* yet upgraded to 10, and they'll keep doing > it for years to come still. So I disagree that now is too late. We > failed to warn people that already upgraded, but we're still on time to > alert people yet to upgrade. > > I attach both the patch and a screenshot to show how minor the visual > effect of the change is. > > (If people hate this, another option is to make it a separate bullet > point.) > Looks reasonable to me. And I definitely think we should do it -- people will be upgrading to 10 for years to come, so claiming it's too late is definitely not correct. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
