Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem
Date
Msg-id 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A75FF@Herge.rcsinc.local
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> "INSERT/UPDATE ... RETURNING" isn't something a driver can take
advantage
> of.
> It would require it to modify your statements which it can't do
safely. So
> your application would have such non-portable SQL code written into
it.
> Switch
> databases and your application code needs to be ported.

I really don't think it matters.  Currently, in PostgreSQL, there is
only 'one true way' to have a real unique identifier for any given tuple
that is persistent across queries and this is a sequence.  Since
sequences are basically managed by the app, your driver (I'm assuming)
can't reliably use them.

This is kind of similar to the issues being talked about wrt user locks.
Because the lack of a true persistent tuple identifier, they require
some data to be passed to them from the app (not really a big deal for
them, however).

From the point of view of your driver, the real solution is to bump oid
to 64 bits and un-deprecate it.

Merlin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dann Corbit"
Date:
Subject: Enhancement suggestion
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem