| From: | George Neuner <gneuner2(at)comcast(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: looking for a globally unique row ID |
| Date: | 2017-09-15 02:43:10 |
| Message-ID: | f3fmrc5hr9t73otbqdgq9g98r8ahhhhkpk@4ax.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:02:05 -0500, Merlin Moncure
<mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>... With sequences, the database *guarantees* that the
>identifier is unique with no exceptions; there never will be a unique
>value. Can you give a hypothetical example of how you think they
>wouldn't work?
Jumping in here, but a month or so past someone here was complaining
about a restore resetting all the sequences in the database. Obviously
a strange situation [I've never seen it], but something to worry about
if you are relying on sequences for uniqueness.
Upthread I suggested the timestamp+counter approach. I wasn't
thinking about this issue specifically, but it is immune to the
counter being reset [accidentally or otherwise].
George
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | milist ujang | 2017-09-15 03:46:02 | Re: BDR, near xid wraparound, a lot of files in pg_subtrans directory |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-09-15 02:36:51 | Re: BDR, near xid wraparound, a lot of files in pg_subtrans directory |