retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

Hello A customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres 10 on a trial upgrade from 9.6. They were using sequences from SERIAL columns a little unorthodoxly, and their stuff stopped working: essentially, they hacked the default expression so that it'd automatically use negative numb

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hello > > A customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres 10 on a > trial upgrade from 9.6. They were using sequences from SERIAL columns a > little unorthodoxly, and their stuff stopped working: essentially, they > hacked

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera  wrote:HelloA customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres 10 on atrial upgrade from 9.6.  They were using sequences from SERIAL colum

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera  wrote:HelloA customer of ours was taken by surprise by a change in Postgres

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On 2018-08-28 19:02:06 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Looks reasonable to me. And I definitely think we should do it -- people > will be upgrading to 10 for years to come, so claiming it's too late is > definitely not correct. Please make sure to backpatch it to all branches carrying v10 release

Re: retroactive pg10 relnotes: sequence changes

On 2018-Aug-28, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > I have attached patch where I suggested some alternate wording and > remove the parenthetical comment, as I don’t believe that should be > an aside. Cool, thanks. I have pushed it with your proposed wording. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www