Douglas McNaught wrote: > Benjamin Smith <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
