On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski > <dep...@depesz.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:07:27PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> All you need to do is define your own sequence with an >>> increment of 500. Look at: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-createsequence.html >> >> This is often not enough. For example - I want standard increment of 1, >> but right now I'm importing 10000 objects, and it would be simpler for >> me to get 10000 ids. Preferably in one block. >> >> This is not achievable now. I know I can 'alter sequence set increment >> by' - but this will also affect concurrent sessions. which might not be >> a problem, but it's a side effect that I don't want. >> >> +1 for original proposition, would love to get it. > > If we do this, I'm inclined to think that the extra argument to > nextval() should be treated as overriding the base increment rather > than specifying a multiplier for it. Other than that nitpick, it > sounds like a reasonable thing to allow. >
After giving it some thought, that sounds better. You gain some functionality that way (temporarily overriding the interval) and lose none. Peter -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
