On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 07:20:17AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 05:24 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >OK, but what about highly volatile tables for come-and-go type of things?
> >Think of a session pool, or task queue. I want to use NO CYCLE for this
> >kind of tables as it would allow me to never worry about hitting "nextval:
> >reached maximum value of sequence" error, recycle ids (because they come
> >and go), and still be safe because PK constraint protects me. Any flaws
> >in this vision of mine?
>
> Assuming you meant CYCLE not NO CYCLE, I see no issue.
Oh, mea culpa, I meant CYCLE of course (in the quoted paragraph above).
> If you do use a sequence with NO CYCLE you can use ALTER SEQUENCE some_seq
> RESTART to reset it:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-altersequence.html
I understand that I can reset it; the idea was to minimize the table and
sequence maintenance while allowing it to work, well, forever. Hence the
CYCLE idea. Anyway, I've heard you, thanks Adrian.
./danfe
