| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ralph van Etten <ralph(at)et10(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: serialization errors when inserting new records |
| Date: | 2005-01-23 11:12:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20050123111258.GA13120@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:23:50 +0100,
Ralph van Etten <ralph(at)et10(dot)org> wrote:
> But I think there are situations where a serial isn't convenient
> Like when you want an primary key which consists of the current
> year and an sequence number. Like ('05', 1), ('05', 2), ('05', 3) etc.
> With a sequence you must write extra code to reset the sequence every year
> and you get into trouble if someone inserts data from the previous year...
> A 'MAX(id)+1' is much simpler and cleaner then.
You don't normally want to do that either. You should use one sequence for all
of the years.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-01-23 14:35:48 | Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED) |
| Previous Message | William Yu | 2005-01-23 11:02:49 | Re: serialization errors when inserting new records |