Re: Re: inserting, index and no index - speed

>>>>> "AP" == Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:

TL> Everything is always a transaction in Postgres. If you don't say
TL> begin/end, then there's an implicit begin and end around each individual
>>
>> This doesn't seem to hold exactly for INSERTs involving sequences as
>> default values. Even if the insert fails for some other constraint,
>> the sequence is incremented.

AP> No, that's exactly how it is supposed to work, to guarantee that you will
AP> never get same value from two separate calls to nextval.

Even if your transaction fails? That seems to counter the definition
of a transaction that aborts; the state of the database is different
than before.

Or am I really thinking wrongly about what an aborted transaction
should leave behind?