Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8924762CD; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from jester.senspire.com (unknown [216.208.117.7]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD116476253; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jester.senspire.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gALKNohU079720; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:23:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rbt@rbt.ca) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence From: Rod Taylor To: "scott.marlowe" Cc: Bruce Momjian , "Thomas O'Connell" , PostgreSQL-development , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1037910229.56165.20.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 21 Nov 2002 15:23:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/337 X-Sequence-Number: 10479 On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote: > On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand > > > concurrency issues. ;-) > > > > Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert. > > Isn't that what Bruce just said? ;^) I suppose so. I took what Bruce said to be that multiple users could get the same ID. I keep having developers want to make their own table for a sequence, then use id = id + 1 -- so they hold a lock on it for the duration of the transaction. -- Rod Taylor