Yes, he meant that one should not assume that the next value will be one
increment higher than the current highest value in the table.
You shouldn't rely on them being sequential because they will not always
be that way.
Sven Willenberger wrote:
David Fetter presumably uttered the following on
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:33 PM, David Fetter wrote:
Relational purists sometimes insist that artificial keys cause more
problems than they solve
That's interesting.
It seems to come in handy for me. It is interesting though.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:27:41PM -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote:
>
>
> David Fetter presumably uttered the following on 04/07/05 20:16:
> >On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 07:59:52PM -0400, Matthew Terenzio wrote:
> >
> >>I'm noticing that a sequence is advancing even if the insertion
> >>fails. Is thi
David Fetter presumably uttered the following on 04/07/05 20:16:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 07:59:52PM -0400, Matthew Terenzio wrote:
I'm noticing that a sequence is advancing even if the insertion
fails. Is this weird or expected?
It's expected. Sequences are guaranteed to generate unique IDs.
Th
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 07:59:52PM -0400, Matthew Terenzio wrote:
> I'm noticing that a sequence is advancing even if the insertion
> fails. Is this weird or expected?
It's expected. Sequences are guaranteed to generate unique IDs.
These happen to be an increasing sequence of integers, but there
I'm noticing that a sequence is advancing even if the insertion fails.
Is this weird or expected?
Matt Terenzio
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
