On 3/29/17, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/29/17, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Vitaly Burovoy >> <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think min_value and max_value should not be set to "1" or "-1" but >>> to real min/max of the type by default. >> >> This is the default behavior for ages, since e8647c45 to be exact. So >> you would change 20 years of history? > > ... is it a wrong way to keep historical minimum as "1" by > default: it is not a minimum of any of supported type.
I've read the standard about "minvalue", "maxvalue" and "start". OK, I was wrong. Since "start" should be equal to "minvalue" unless defined explicitly, the only bug left from my first email here is resetting "minvalue" back to 1 when data type changes and if the value matches the bound of the old type (the last case there). P.S.: the same thing with "maxvalue" when "increment" is negative. -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
