On 3/29/17, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/17, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Vitaly Burovoy
>> <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think min_value and max_value should not be set to "1" or "-1" but
>>> to real min/max of the type by default.
>> This is the default behavior for ages, since e8647c45 to be exact. So
>> you would change 20 years of history?
> ... is it a wrong way to keep historical minimum as "1" by
> default: it is not a minimum of any of supported type.

I've read the standard about "minvalue", "maxvalue" and "start".
OK, I was wrong. Since "start" should be equal to "minvalue" unless
defined explicitly, the only bug left from my first email here is
resetting "minvalue" back to 1 when data type changes and if the value
matches the bound of the old type (the last case there).

P.S.: the same thing with "maxvalue" when "increment" is negative.

Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to