Re: Serial not so unique?

From: Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
Cc: Joe Conway <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Serial not so unique?
Date: 2001-08-19 03:51:38
Message-ID: 20010819135138.G16924@sunhill.commsecure.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 10:02:02AM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> At 09:18 AM 8/19/01 +1000, Stephen Robert Norris wrote:
> >Recreating the sequence solves the problem, of course. So does setval(102).
> >My problem is that it got into this state originally. The test case that
> >demonstrates it sometimes takes about 1.5 hours to run, and I have only got
>
> Maybe somewhere, something is using nextval of the wrong sequence?
>
> Did you do a search for setval (not setvar) in your code?
>
> Or grep for the sequence name.
>
> I suspect it's the app, but maybe you've just found a bug in PG.

The field in question is defined as a serial; until I started looking
at this I didn't even _know_ what the sequence was called.

There are no other sequences created (no explicit ones and no
other serial values).

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Robert Norris 2001-08-19 03:51:44 Re: Serial not so unique?
Previous Message Stephen Robert Norris 2001-08-19 03:18:00 Re: Serial not so unique?