From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "rob" <rob(at)cabrion(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sequence bug or feature? |
Date: | 2001-01-06 16:59:57 |
Message-ID: | 17316.978800397@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"rob" <rob(at)cabrion(dot)com> writes:
> It appears that sequence.last_value and nextval('sequence') are out of sync
> when first created. My comments below are in [brackets]. Is this by design
> or is this a bug? Does this conform to SQL92? TIA.
It's by design. Note the is_called flag, which might be better named
ever_advanced or some such. The initial state is last_value = initial
value, is_called = false. The first nextval changes is_called to true;
subsequent ones increment last_value. So last_value is the last value
assigned only if a value has ever been assigned, ie, is_called is true.
This is a little bit baroque, agreed. I think the idea was to allow
sequences to start at MININT without creating arithmetic-overflow
issues.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | GH | 2001-01-06 17:22:07 | Re: PHP and PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-06 16:54:22 | Re: Is libpq thread-safe? |