On 08/11/14 00:57, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 08/11/14 00:45, Robert Haas wrote:
On Nov 5, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
I don't see how to make that work with ALTER SEQUENCE USING to be
honest and I do care quite a lot about that use-case (I think the
ability to convert the "local" sequences to 3rd party ones and back
is very important).
What specific problems do you foresee? There's an issue if something
depends on one of the added sequence columns, but if that is the case
then you had *better* fail.
I think that the debugability value of making extra sequence columns
human-readable is quite high.
My main problem is actually not with having tuple per-seqAM, but more
with the fact that Heikki does not want to have last_value as compulsory
column/parameter. How is the new AM then supposed to know where to pick
up and if it even can pick up?
And obviously, once the last_value is part of the compulsory columns we
again have to WAL log all the time for the use-case which Heikki is
using as model, so it does not help there (just to clear what my point
was about).
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
