On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:33:39PM +1300, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> GH wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Er, to answer my own question, yes.
> > > I seem to have discovered that the maximum maxvalue for a sequence is
> > > 9,999,999,999 (i.e. 10 digits) -- which leads one to believe that 10 is
> > > the max num of digits for an integer-type column.
> > [Must...stop...coding...while...asleep...and....braindead.]
> >
> > The max for maxvalue is the max(integer) which I believe is 2147483647.
>
> So if you stick with the current standard, you can create ten per second
> for the next 6.8 years before you have to worry.
Bu...bu...but, *that's not the /point/*! ;-))
heh.
I hate it when my noble efforts are shot down by realism and sensible
thinking. ;-)
The truly funny thing about it all is that I have since dropped the whole
bloody column from the table. Who needs a single unique column, anyway?
The sad truth is that I need to re-do a large part of the schema using
foreign keys and some other things.
Thanks for all your efforts.
gh
> I think that by then PostgreSQL will have INT8 sequences, or you will
> have learned enough to implement them yourself :-)
>
> Regards,
> Andrew.
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Andrew McMillan, e-mail: Andrew@cat-it.co.nz
> Catalyst IT Ltd, PO Box 10-225, Level 22, 105 The Terrace, Wellington
> Me: +64 (21) 635 694, Fax: +64 (4) 499 5596, Office: +64 (4) 499 2267
