Based on this patch review, I am removing the patch from the patch queue and requiring a resubmission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Dhanaraj M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sorry for resubmitting this patch. > > Just now I found a problem. > > Instead of assigning initial sequence value to 1, > > I assign LLONG_MAX to avoid the buffer overflow problem. > > Please find the current version here. > > This patch is a mess. In the first place, it's completely unkosher for > an application to scribble on a PGresult's contents, even if you do take > steps like the above to try to make sure there's enough space. But said > step does not work anyway -- LLONG_MAX might not exist on the client, or > might exist but be smaller than the server's value. > > Another problem with it is it's not schema-aware and not proof against > quoting requirements for the sequence name (try it with a mixed-case > sequence name for instance). It also ought to pay some attention to > the possibility that the SELECT for last_value fails --- quite aside > from communication failure or such, there might be a permissions problem > preventing the last_value from being read. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org