On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Steven Hirsch <snhir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a body of code using JDBC to work with a PostgreSQL 9.6 database. > All tables use 'SERIAL' or 'BIGSERIAL' types to generate ids. All are > working correctly in terms of using the next value as a default. However, > reading back the most recently applied (currval) value is failing for one > table, where it always returns '0'. Note that the table data shows the > expected value when queried by SELECT! It is only the currval() function > that is wrong. I am properly guarding for SQL exceptions and none are > being thrown. > > The code being used in the failing case is not the slightest bit different > from the working cases in terms of structure and transaction control - only > the SQL, column count, etc. is different (but correctly formed and in all > other ways functional). > > I'm not sure where to start debugging this. Can anyone give me even a > working theory to explain how returning a bogus value is possible? When I > look at the sequences in pgAdmin, they are as expected in terms of > ownership, etc. And, again, the table IS getting the correct value. > Its seems that whatever name you are passing into currval must match an existing sequence ​but it doesn't match the sequence name that is attached to the table.col default expression in question. search_path considerations might play a role if its not a simple copy-paste type error...but its hard to blindly suggest potential reasons. David J.
