Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by d_k_f on Saturday July 17, 2021 @05:55AM (#27864705)

They are sequential for all intents and purposes, they are simply using two separate series within the same number – you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices.

I do agree that (as is so often the case) the directive is not specific enough to determine whether the Italian interpretation is correct or not, though I can provide some context from the German side as provided by the ministry of finance: "Eine lückenlose Abfolge der ausgestellten Rechnungsnummern ist nicht zwingend"[1] (~ "it is not required for the invoice numbers to be gapless"), which directly contradicts the Italians as far as I understand it.

[1] https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/... - p. 522, 14.5 (10) 4

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postgres sequences can skip 32 unexpectedly by zimpenfish on Saturday July 17, 2021 @12:57PM (#27867094)

> you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices.

But you can't determine if there are any gaps which is what the Italian ruling seemed to be concerned with (as best I could follow the Google translation which was pretty bad) and the Germans aren't bothered about.

I think if it were me, I'd ere on the side of caution and have them be sequential (ordered, gapless).

[ Parent | on HN ]