On 2017-05-23 22:47:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Ooops. > > > > Two issues: Firstly, we get a value smaller than seqmin, obviously > > that's not ok. But even if we'd error out, it'd imo still not be ok, > > because we have a command that behaves partially transactionally > > (keeping the seqmax/min transactionally), partially not (keeping the > > current sequence state at -9). > > I don't really agree that this is broken.
Just a quick clarification question: You did notice that nextval() in S1 after the rollback returned -9, despite seqmin being 0? I can see erroring out being acceptable, but returning flat out wrong values....? - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
