From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
Cc: | lmeadors(at)apache(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: getting back autonumber just inserted |
Date: | 2005-07-08 03:28:39 |
Message-ID: | 20050708032839.GA53708@winnie.fuhr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:03:37AM +0200, PFC wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:56:26AM +0200, PFC wrote:
> >>Hm, interesting, you mean the return value of lastval() also depends
> >>if you set your constraints to deferred or immediate ?
> >
> >My mind's ablank trying to contrive a situation where that would
> >matter. Can you provide an example?
>
> It's rather perverse and farfetched, but what would stop one from
> putting some insert statements in a function that happens to be called
> somewhere inside of a check constraint... although one could agree that
> it's a bit shooting oneself in the foot...
PostgreSQL doesn't support deferral of check constraints, only
foreign key constraints. But yeah, if you could do that then
presumably lastval() might return a different sequence's value
depending on whether the constraints were deferred or immediate.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2005-07-08 03:39:21 | Re: Make COUNT(*) Faster? |
Previous Message | PFC | 2005-07-08 03:03:37 | Re: getting back autonumber just inserted |