On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 00:11 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: > As others have said, a serial is a good idea, HOWEVER, if you can't > have gaps in sequences, or each customer needs their own sequence, > then you get to lock the rows / table / etc that you're mucking with > to make sure you don't issue the same id number twice. These days can't you just UPDATE ... RETURNING the sequence source table? Or is there some concurrency issue there I'm not seeing? Other than the awful impact on concurrent insert performance of course, but you're stuck with that using any gapless sequence. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
