On 2017-05-23 22:47:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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
