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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
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? |