Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by devit on Friday July 16, 2021 @08:48AM (#27855675)

The initial design was quite flawed, in addition to not using sequences they should not use one DB object per organization, but rather a single object with an "organization" field.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by wheybags on Friday July 16, 2021 @09:24AM (#27855968)

That's a little unfair, I don't think there's enough information in the article to come to a conclusion either way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by scarmig on Friday July 16, 2021 @10:11AM (#27856390)

That's just a design choice: single tenancy vs multitenancy. I agree that multitenant databases tend to be more pleasant to work with as a developer of dependent services, but there are plenty of reasons (data isolation; resource allocation guarantees) one might want a single tenant db.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by CodeWriter23 on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:08PM (#27860660)

> but rather a single object with an "organization" field.

In your opinion. There are advantages of sharding tables by tenant boundaries. Data isolation and query speed to name a couple.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by peterejhamilton on Friday July 16, 2021 @11:50AM (#27857555)

Hey - author here! I'm not totally sure I follow on this one. Happy to chat more if there's any context missing from the article that you'd find interesting :)

[ Parent | on HN ]