| From: | "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)tincan(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ben-Nes Michael <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Roll Back dont roll back counters |
| Date: | 2001-08-16 14:37:11 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10108160732080.10717-100000@tincan.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> You can tell the order anyway. The order doesn't change, it's only that
> there may be numbers missing,
Please note the message from "Michael Ansley (UK)". If two of more
connections get a cache from a sequence and the inserts are 'sporatic'
then there will be a difference in the sequence number and the insert
order.
> Primarys keys should be opaque. Any meaning read into them is entirely
> coincidental.
I agree.
Rod
--
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-16 14:59:18 | Re: why sequential scan |
| Previous Message | Raise Exception | 2001-08-16 14:30:19 | pg 7.x: Allowing non table owners to COMMENT ON xyz... ? |