Actian Community Forum

geraintjones · 2012-02-09

Hi,
Running the SQL below (in Ingres 10), the first insert into x works, the second gives an integer overflow.
The failure relies on rather a poor design decision that's easily prevented, but just out of interest - a bug or not?
G

Code:

create sequence seq_int8;

create table x(
  a integer not null with default seq_int8.nextval, -- D'oh!
  b integer not null);

create table y (b integer not null);

insert into y values (1);
insert into y values (2);
insert into y values (3);

insert into x(b) select first 1 b from y;
insert into x(b) select first 1 b from y order by 1;

fba · 2012-02-10

What is the exact release you are working on?

geraintjones · 2012-02-13

> What is the exact release you are working on?

Same results in:

10.0.0 (a64.lnx/132)NPTL +p14228
community edition 10.1.0 (pulled from code.ingres.com a few months ago - rev 4717 I think).

I just thought it was interesting that "order by" should trigger the error.
Obviously using an int8 sequence as a default value for an int4 column isn't the greatest idea anyhow. (Although the fact that in Ingres 10 a sequence is created as int8 if not otherwise specified, whereas it was int4 in previous versions, could catch out the unwary).