On Tuesday 14 July 2015 11:33:34 Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Yourfriend <doudou586(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Suggestion: When a conflict was found for UPSERT, don't access the
> > sequence, so users can have a reasonable list of ID.
>
> This is not technically feasible. What if the arbiter index is a serial PK?
>
> The same thing can happen when a transaction is aborted. SERIAL is not
> guaranteed to be gapless.
Could there be a version of UPSERT where an update is tried, and if 0 records
are modified, an insert is done?
Just wondering, I haven't got am use-case for that. I don't mid gaps in
sequences.