Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FDD475925 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E61C4758FE for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from p261-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au (postgresql.org) [203.173.165.7] by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 18EiIv-0002yO-00; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:47:02 +1100 Message-ID: <3DDC572E.F4B45BC4@postgresql.org> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:46:54 +1100 From: Justin Clift X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neil Conway Cc: Oliver Elphick , Robert Treat , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence References: <92c0776e.0211180745.49911131@posting.google.com> <1037782392.29678.88.camel@linda> <1037828113.23925.101.camel@camel> <1037830378.24840.40.camel@linda> <3DDC47A9.4C0BC2DE@postgresql.org> <877kf74mex.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/839 X-Sequence-Number: 32055 Neil Conway wrote: > > Justin Clift writes: > > This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something > > we'd like to release. > > It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is > grounds for changing the release schedule. Hey, I'm no fan of slowing the release schedule either. Bug this is definitely sounding like a bug. > > No real issue with the nicety for newbies, but am very concerned > > about the lack of a dependancy check here. > > Well, how would you suggest we fix this? ISTM this is partially a > result of the fact that we don't produce dependancy information for > function bodies. While it might be possible to do so (in 7.4) for > certain types of functions (e.g. for functions defined in SQL, > PL/PgSQL, etc.), I can't see a general solution (e.g. for functions > defined in C). Absolutely *no* idea. > And adding random hacks to get specific functions (e.g. nextval()) to > work does not strike me as a very good idea. Agreed. Random hacks aren't always a good approach. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > Cheers, > > Neil > > -- > Neil Conway || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi