On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 20:15:53 +1000,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> nextval() should return value in the order they were called, rather
> than commit time. I hope you're not relying on the unordered results of
> a table scan remaining stable. Tables have no intrinsic "order", only
> one inposed by an external sequence.
This isn't really guarenteed with nextval. I think it will work if you
are just reserving one value at a time (which is the default).
I think the real problem is that the original poster needs to precisely
define what determines order. If the precise definition is transaction
commit order, I think that is going to be hard to do exactly right.