On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 07:20:17AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 06/09/2018 05:24 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >OK, but what about highly volatile tables for come-and-go type of things? > >Think of a session pool, or task queue. I want to use NO CYCLE for this > >kind of tables as it would allow me to never worry about hitting "nextval: > >reached maximum value of sequence" error, recycle ids (because they come > >and go), and still be safe because PK constraint protects me. Any flaws > >in this vision of mine? > > Assuming you meant CYCLE not NO CYCLE, I see no issue. Oh, mea culpa, I meant CYCLE of course (in the quoted paragraph above). > If you do use a sequence with NO CYCLE you can use ALTER SEQUENCE some_seq > RESTART to reset it: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-altersequence.html I understand that I can reset it; the idea was to minimize the table and sequence maintenance while allowing it to work, well, forever. Hence the CYCLE idea. Anyway, I've heard you, thanks Adrian. ./danfe
