Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com>
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Gaps in PK sequence numbers
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwboV8qvZrGWb+TOsNVYXzf=j=gE3fYMYFoNg2JT2_0YqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d44076fc-fcd7-445c-da76-5d87c7d2dc4@appl-ecosys.com>
References: <35fd10ab-5f7f-7a57-9cc5-c03d81476d13@appl-ecosys.com> <CAKFQuwboV8qvZrGWb+TOsNVYXzf=j=gE3fYMYFoNg2JT2_0YqA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d44076fc-fcd7-445c-da76-5d87c7d2dc4%40appl-ecosys.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024, David G. Johnston wrote:

> For efficiency the only thing used to determine the next value of a
> sequence is the stored value of the last sequence value issued. Where that
> value may have been used, in a table as a PK or some other purpose, does
> not enter into it. Using a sequence as a default does indeed become
> problematic if you don't use it exclusively. If you do use it exclusively
> usually you just set the last value to be the maximum needed and use it
> going forward. The numbers from deleted rows simply remain missing in the
> table.

David,

Thanks for the explanation. I had entered PKs without using the sequence.

Regards,

Rich