On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/6/17 2:15 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: >> I notice that there's a preexisting >> oddity in the fact that sequences created with a negative increment >> in current releases initialize the minval to -(2^63)+1 instead of -2^63, >> the actual lowest value for a bigint. > > I think that had to do with that we had to play games to work around the > lack of proper int64 support, and various weird code has developed over > time because of that. I think we should fix it if we can. > > The attached patch fixes the default minimum value to use the proper > int64 min value. > > With this patch, when upgrading with pg_dump, descending sequences with > the previous default minimum value would be kept with that > now-not-default value. We could alternative adjust those sequences to > the new default value.
This patch looks acceptable to me. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
