From: | "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)illinois(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Sequence Cycle question |
Date: | 2025-01-23 18:46:52 |
Message-ID: | SJ0PR11MB5629E584D93EF0BCF5F984FCDEE02@SJ0PR11MB5629.namprd11.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Lets say I was to set the cycle=true. Once the IDs start back at 1, lets say we get to an ID of 5 where there is a duplicate.
Is there a trigger or something else, that I could associate with the table that would "catch/detect" the insert error. If an error occurs it would then do a "fresh" insert with no specified ID so the sequence would naturally be incremented?
I hope that made sense.
Thanks,
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Campbell, Lance <lance(at)illinois(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sequence Cycle question
"Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)illinois(dot)edu> writes:
> Table X has records that have been removed over time randomly. There are IDs that cover a wide range of values between 1 and 1,000,000.
> When the primary key ID, which is a sequence, reaches 1,000,000 then the next sequence value will start back at 1.
> What would happen if I had a primary key for ID of 5 still in use? When I reach 5 will the sequence skip that number and go to 6 instead?
No, the sequence has no idea about what is in the table. It will generate "5" when it's time to, and then your insert will get a duplicate-key violation.
You could work around that by retrying the insert, but it might be better to reconsider whether you want a cycling sequence for this application.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-01-23 18:58:53 | Re: Sequence Cycle question |
Previous Message | msalais | 2025-01-23 18:35:44 | RE: Commit with wait event on advisory lock! |