Re: serial columns & loads misfeature?

> After I created the DB, I inserted the data (thousands of inserts) via
> psql. All went well. Then I started testing the changed code (Perl)
> and when I went to insert, I got a "dup key" error.
>
> It took me awhile to figure out what was going on, but I can recreate
> the problem with:
>
> create table test (s serial, i int);
> insert into test values (1,1);
> insert into test values (2,2);
> insert into test values (3,3);
> insert into test (i) values (4);
> ERROR: Cannot insert a duplicate key into unique index test_s_key
>

With these inserts, you are bypassing the SERIAL mechanism
(it uses a DEFAULT value)

> I was expecting the system to realize new "keys" had been inserted, and
> so when the "nextval" that implicitly happens on a serial field is run,
> it would "know" that it was too small and return "max(s)+1". [FWIW, my
> expectations in this area were set by my experience with Informix and
> mysql, both do this; not sure if other RDBMs do.]
>

I can certainly see the advantage of having the SERIAL columns set
properly by some kind of OtherDB --> Postgres conversion tool, but
I do not think there is a need for a different mechanism in the
usual case.