On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM, David Johnston <polobo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tangential comment but have you considered emitting a warning (and/or log > entry) when you are 10,000-50,000 away from issuing the last available > number in the sequence so that some recognition exists that any code > depending on the sequence is going to fail soon? > > Also, during sequence creation you know the integer type being used so that > maximum value is known and an overflow should not need to come into play (I > guess the trade-off is the implicit "try-catch" [or whatever mechanism C > uses] performance hit versus the need to store another full integer in the > data structure). > > You could also give access to the "warning threshold" value so that the > developer can change it to whatever value is desired (with a meaningful > default of course). There are already tools out there that can monitor this stuff - for example, check_postgres.pl. http://bucardo.org/check_postgres/check_postgres.pl.html#sequence We tend to avoid emitting warnings for this kind of thing because they can consume vast amounts of disk space, and a lot of times no one's looking at them anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
