Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On 2018-08-28 19:02:06 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Looks reasonable to me. And I definitely think we should do it -- people > will be upgrading to 10 for years to come, so claiming it's too late is > definitely not correct. Please make sure to backpatch it to all branches carrying v10 release

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera  wrote:HelloA customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hello > > A customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres 10 on a > trial upgrade from 9.6. They were using sequences from SERIAL columns a > little unorthodoxly, and their stuff stopped working: essentially, they >

Re: Limitation of prepared statement name

Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel writes: > It seems that naming prepared statements is limited to 63 characters as per > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-SYNTAX-IDENTIFIERS Yeah, just like every other SQL identifier in Postgres... > The dangerous situation