On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:36:00PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > 0002, 0003 > ------------ > seems fine, cosmetic changes
Thanks, I've applied these two for now. I'll reply to the rest tomorrow or so. By the way, I am really wondering if the update of elm->increment in nextval_internal() should be treated as a bug? In the "fetch" cache if a sequence does not use cycle, we may fail when reaching the upper or lower bound for respectively an ascending or descending sequence, while still keeping what could be an incorrect value if values are cached on a follow-up nextval_internal call? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
