On 4 Dec 2002 at 20:41, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> hannu=# update seq set max_value = 99;
> ERROR: You can't change sequence relation seq
> hannu=# update pg_class set relkind = 'r' where relname = 'seq';
> UPDATE 1
> hannu=# update seq set max_value = 99;
> UPDATE 1
> hannu=# update pg_class set relkind = 'S' where relname = 'seq';
> UPDATE 1
> hannu=# select * from seq;
> sequence_name | last_value | increment_by | max_value | min_value |
> cache_value | log_cnt | is_cycled | is_called
> ---------------+------------+--------------+-----------+-----------+-------------+---------+-----------+-----------
> seq | 1 | 1 | 99 | 1
> | 1 | 1 | f | f
That makes me wonder. If sequense is treated like a single column single row
table and it's value is guarenteed to be increasing even in case of aborted
transaction, is it correct to say that postgresql already has nested
transactions, albeit dormant?
ByeShridhar
--
Zero Defects, n.: The result of shutting down a production line.
