Skip to content

Conversation

@alxndrsn
Copy link
Contributor

@alxndrsn alxndrsn commented Sep 8, 2025

Reimagines nextval() use in response to getodk/central#1353.

What has been done to verify that this works as intended?

CI.

Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?

This PR doesn't actually remove nextval() usage - it increases it. But perhaps it clarifies what's going on?

An alternative approach might be to defer FK enforcement until transaction end. This would require an extra UPDATE clause.

How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?

No effect.

Does this change require updates to the API documentation? If so, please update docs/api.yaml as part of this PR.

No.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:

  • run make test and confirmed all checks still pass OR confirm CircleCI build passes
  • verified that any code from external sources are properly credited in comments or that everything is internally sourced

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant