Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't believe in autoincrement so I'm not up to date on the evil things you can do with it, so I'm unclear why this bug matters: All it does is change the arbitrarily chosen start value for new rows, what could that break?

The existing behavior makes more sense anyway, as it preserves 'truncate table' <=> 'restore nodata dump' equivalence better.



That is also a way to solve it: make it a documented change. But it looks like it was completely ignored. So happy birthday!


It's less that it would break anything and more that it's philosophically wrong to be outputting what's basically a historical max value field when asked not to output data.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: