Adrian, The sequence is not set as a default on PK. The sequence is exclusively being used by the ORM. Thanks, Shantanu On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, 06:28:53 PM EDT, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote: On 8/19/20 3:24 PM, Shantanu Shekhar wrote: Please reply to list also. Ccing list.
> Thanks Adrian, > > I will reach out to the ORM team and see if they can help me understand > this behavior. I should have asked earlier, is this sequence set as a DEFAULT on the PK field or is it just being used by code to get numbers? > > Shantanu > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, 06:20:27 PM EDT, Adrian Klaver > <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote: > > > On 8/19/20 3:15 PM, Shantanu Shekhar wrote: > > Team, > > > > I have a sequence definition in Postgres 9.6.11 like so: > > > > CREATE SEQUENCE IF NOT EXISTS org.my_seq > > INCREMENT 1 > > MINVALUE 1 > > NO MAXVALUE > > START 1 > > CACHE 20; > > > > This sequence is used by a Java ORM framework to generate primary keys > > for one of our tables. The initial numbers generated by this sequence > > are as shown below: > > > > -28 -27 -26 -25 -8 -7 1 2 52 53 72 92 93 94 112 113 132 133 152 172 192 > > 193 212 > > > > I am unable to understand why the sequence would start with a negative > > number, particularly when the definition explicitly asks the sequence to > > start at 1. This has happened consistently in all of our environments. > > Because something in the ORM is generating negative numbers and > supplying then directly to the PK field. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shantanu > > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> > > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com