| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Date: | 2017-05-24 03:25:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20170524032516.rsggec2yrd4cqvv2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-05-23 22:47:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | digoal | 2017-05-24 06:33:23 | BUG #14668: BRIN open autosummarize=on , database will crash |
| Previous Message | csjy_tsb | 2017-05-24 02:52:55 | BUG #14667: Question on money type as the key of partitioned table |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-24 03:58:49 | Re: Causal reads take II |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-05-24 03:25:07 | Shortened URLs for commit messages |