Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 25/08/2019 18:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Is there a reason why the serial pseudotypes still behave as they did
>>> pre-v10 and don't map to GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY these days?
>> Backwards compatibility?
> With what?
Applications that expect declaring a serial column to result in the same
catalog side-effects as before. The default expressions look different,
and the dependencies look different. For instance, an app that expected
atthasdef to tell it something about what happens when a column's value
is omitted would be surprised. An app that thought it could alter the
default expression for a column originally declared serial would be even
more surprised.
Right. I'd be very leery of changing this w/o a lot of checking and/or a some BC to help apps that expect traditional SERIALs to work.
Hibernate is a rather widely used example. Not a good example mind you, but a very widely used one.
Its PostgreSQL dialect directly calls nextval(...) and expects the value returned to be the next value off the sequence based on the sequence's increment counter. This is true of many other ORMs etc too. To reduce round-trips and to give them control of when they flush dirty objects from their internal writeback cache to the DB, they tend to preallocate object IDs from an internal pool they populate periodically from the database sequence generator. This design isn't even totally unreasonable given the access patterns of these tools.
Hibernate also has an existing (IMO awful) defect of defaulting to a sequence increment value is 50 in its schema configuration/generation tools. It fails to check the increment on pre-existing schemas and blindly assumes 50 so if nextval returns 500 it will merrily return values (450..500] from its internal sequence value assignment pool. Much mess ensues. So lets not pretend it is good, it's kind of horrible, but like ActiveRecord and other monstrosities it's also a very widely used product we need to care about. Unfortunately ;)
This reminds me though, I want to revisit my nextval(regclass, n_ids) patch I have lying around somewhere. Apps should be able to request non-default chunk allocations from nextval so we can avoid dealing with these unpleasant assumptions about increment size...
... or worse, the apps that try to "fix" this by calling nextval then setval to jump the sequence to the value they think it should have next. And yes, I've seen this. In production code.
