From: | "Suvarna" <suvarnat(at)cygnus(dot)stpp(dot)soft(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bug in 7.3.2 |
Date: | 2006-03-01 04:50:45 |
Message-ID: | 002f01c63ceb$c4ab7570$7200a8c0@CYGNUS.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Jonah,
No we are not caching the sequence
In the transaction for the first time we use next val & then on we use curretn val.
Regards,
Suvarna
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonah H. Harris
To: Suvarna
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] bug in 7.3.2
Are you caching sequences?
On 2/28/06, Suvarna <suvarnat(at)cygnus(dot)stpp(dot)soft(dot)net> wrote:
we are using postgresql 7.3.2 version.
We are facing a problem in nextval of sequence. The problem is as follows,
If the server shuts down abrupotly because of power failuar or any other
cause then the sequences tend to skip few numbers.
After restarting the server the nextval of sequence doest match
with the last number.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James_Hughes | 2006-03-01 08:15:59 | Initdb on Windows 2003 |
Previous Message | Suvarna | 2006-03-01 04:47:04 | Re: bug in 7.3.2 |