From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ken Winter" <ken(at)sunward(dot)org> |
Cc: | "'PostgreSQL pg-general List'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: In processing DDL, when does pg_catalog get updated? |
Date: | 2005-12-30 17:10:28 |
Message-ID: | 12622.1135962628@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Ken Winter" <ken(at)sunward(dot)org> writes:
> My question is: Why didn't the chunk of "gen_sequences" code that consults
> pg_catalog find a record of "e_mail_address_invisible_id_seq", and thereby
> refrain from trying to create it again?
I added a few "raise notice" commands to your function, and got this:
NOTICE: sub_idcol = invisible_id
NOTICE: default_exp = nextval('public.e_mail_address_invisible_id_seq'::text)
NOTICE: sequence_name = public.e_mail_address_invisible_id_seq
NOTICE: not found
NOTICE: sub_idcol = pop_id
NOTICE: default_exp = nextval('pop_seq'::text)
NOTICE: sequence_name = pop_seq
NOTICE: found
ERROR: relation "e_mail_address_invisible_id_seq" already exists
CONTEXT: SQL statement "CREATE SEQUENCE public.e_mail_address_invisible_id_seq;"
PL/pgSQL function "gen_sequences" line 51 at execute statement
The problem seems to be that you're not accounting for a schema name
possibly appearing in nextval's argument.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Caduto | 2005-12-30 17:38:27 | Re: Forum Software |
Previous Message | Ken Winter | 2005-12-30 16:33:13 | Re: In processing DDL, when does pg_catalog get updated? |