Andrew Dunstan írta:
> Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
>> Tom Lane írta:
>>
>>>> - unique index checks are done in two steps
>>>> to avoid inflating the sequence if a unique index check
>>>> is failed that doesn't reference the IDENTITY column
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is just not acceptable --- there is nothing in the standard that
>>> requires such behavior,
>>
>> But also there is nothing that would say not to do it. :-)
>> And this way, there is be nothing that would separate
>> IDENTITY from regular SERIALs only the slightly
>> later value generation. The behaviour I proposed
>> would be a big usability plus over the standard
>> with less possible skipped values.
>>
>>> and I dislike the wide-ranging kluges you
>>> introduced to support it.
>>
>> Can you see any other way to avoid skipping sequence values
>> as much as possible?
>
>
>
> This doesn't strike me as a sensible design goal. Why not just live
> with skipped values?
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
The idea wouldn't have considered to cross my mind
if Tom didn't mention the action-at-a-distance behaviour.
If you look back in the archives, my first working
IDENTITY was nothing more than the syntactic sugar
over the regular SERIAL.
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
