Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Behaviour

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Stéphane Raimbault <raimbault(dot)stephane(at)free(dot)fr>
Cc: <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Behaviour
Date: 2002-07-18 15:36:33
Message-ID: 20020718083514.H72400-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On 18 Jul 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Stphane Raimbault wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have the following tables :
> CREATE TABLE tournee (
>        no_tournee SERIAL PRIMARY KEY);
>
> CREATE TABLE fab_tournee (
>        id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
>        id_fab INTEGER REFERENCES fabrication ON DELETE CASCADE,
>        no_tournee INTEGER REFERENCES tournee ON DELETE CASCADE);
>
> When I insert a new record into 'fab_tournee' whereas the field
> 'no_tournee' doesnt exist in 'tournee', I have this message :
>
> ERROR:  <unnamed> referential integrity violation - key referenced
> from fab_tournee not found in tournee
>
> but 'id' increments in 'fab_tournee'.
>
> Is it a normal behaviour ?

Yes.  SERIAL uses a sequence for doing its value choice (it's
effectively similar to an integer column with a default) and
sequences do not rollback with transactions (due to concurrency
concerns).  You can find more info about this in the archives.


In response to

  • Behaviour at 2002-07-17 22:22:46 from Stéphane Raimbault

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Mike ColemanDate: 2002-07-18 20:12:20
Subject: pg_ctl failure with older Bourne shells (use ${1:+"$@"})
Previous:From: Tony GriffithsDate: 2002-07-18 12:14:36
Subject: Bug found in psql interface

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group