On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Postgres DBA wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, M Simms wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, solution using sequences is not so good unless you don't
> > > suppose to use access to that table from some simultaneously running
> > > sessions. The problem is that every sessions accessing this additional
> > > sequence with nextval() will get its own pool of values for the
> > > sequence, so early or later you'll get some gaps in records numbering
> > > because of at least on of two reasons:
> >
> > >From the manpage of create sequence
> >
> >
> > Low-level locking is used to enable multiple simultaneous
> > calls to a generator.
> >
> > Doesnt this mean it will work for this task?
> >
> >
>
> Sure, you can access one sequence from a couple of sessions at once but
> it the only thing is guaranteed is UNIQUENESS of values you get from
> nestval() across one sequence. Although nobody can promise you that there
> will no gaps... There are lots of reasons, I mentioned just some of them
> (see my previous posting in this thread)
>
> Aleksey
>
>
>
>
My understanding is that if you do not enable the cache feature
of the sequence, there will be no gaps. Of course, disabling the
cache slows the transaction.
Marc Zuckman
marc@fallon.classyad.com
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
_ Visit The Home and Condo MarketPlace _
_ http://www.ClassyAd.com _
_ _
_ FREE basic property listings/advertisements and searches. _
_ _
_ Try our premium, yet inexpensive services for a real _
_ selling or buying edge! _
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
