From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Charlie Toohey <ctoohey(at)pacbell(dot)net> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: serial column vs. explicit sequence question |
Date: | 2002-06-13 22:13:32 |
Message-ID: | 20020613151223.D8240-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Charlie Toohey wrote:
> If session A and session B are concurrently doing the same master-detail
> transaction, wouldn't currval possibly reflect the sequence value used by the
> other session ? Or are you saying that since this will be an explicit
> transaction that currval won't reflect the fact that the sequence may have
> been incremented by another session ?
currval is defined to give the last value given to your session. The only
cases you have to watch out for are other potential nextvals in your
session (triggers/rules), but usually you can find those pretty easily.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Charlie Toohey | 2002-06-13 22:15:18 | Re: serial column vs. explicit sequence question |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-06-13 22:12:18 | Re: Please help me out on this insert error |