Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Benjamin Smith <lists@benjamindsmith.com> writes:
>
> > On Thursday 25 January 2007 09:53, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> >> Nature of the beast. ?Sequence increments aren't rolled back on
> >> transaction abort (for performance and concurrency reasons), so you
> >> should expect gaps.
> >
> > Behavior long ago noted and accounted for. But I've always wondered why this
> > was so? Is there a specific reason for this behavior?
>
> Being able to roll back a sequence increment would require locking the
> sequence for the duration of the transaction, which would kill
> concurrency.
This is an FAQ.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
