| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Price <eprice(at)ptc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ericson Smith <eric(at)did-it(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LAST_INSERT_ID equivalent |
| Date: | 2003-06-12 19:26:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20030612192653.GA5756@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 15:17:22 -0400,
Erik Price <eprice(at)ptc(dot)com> wrote:
>
> So you're saying that you perform a pre-query to fetch the nextval, then
> you include that in your query where you perform the INSERT? I see.
> Since this is all part of the same transaction, the nextval value won't
> overwrite another simultaneous INSERT, I assume. This seems like a good
> way to do it too. I don't mind the holes in the sequence, but wouldn't
> this INSERT cause the sequence to increment the primary key yet again?
If you do things that way you specify a value for the serial column
rather than let it default to using nextval.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ericson Smith | 2003-06-12 19:26:55 | Re: LAST_INSERT_ID equivalent |
| Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-06-12 19:19:49 | Re: need a method to ping a running database |