Re: Bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Andrew G(dot) Hammond" <drew(at)xyzzy(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug?
Date: 2001-11-15 22:49:44
Message-ID: 19638.1005864584@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Andrew G. Hammond" <drew(at)xyzzy(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> Now maybe THAT behaviour should be a bug. Since the nextval() is
> implicit in the second INSERT, and the second INSERT fails, it would
> make sense to roll back the nextval().

nextval() is never rolled back; this is quite intentional. See many past
discussions in the archives ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: Bug? at 2001-11-15 19:29:58 from Andrew G. Hammond

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-15 22:52:00 Re: Idle in transaction ????
Previous Message K. Ari Krupnikov 2001-11-15 22:35:32 return an array as aggregate result?