Steve Singer <ssin...@ca.afilias.info> writes:
> I will look at addressing this in an updated patch.
I've nearly finished revising the patch already, don't worry about it.
>> Should currval really be used after a failed transaction ? Right now, we can
>> have a value that has been generated inside a rollbacked transaction too. I'd
>> vote for leave it alone.
> I agree probably shouldn't be using curval after a failed transaction
Well, people can do that now, and it doesn't throw an error. I'm
inclined to agree with Marc that just leaving it alone (ie, it returns
the last value produced, whether the transaction rolls back or not)
is the best thing. There's inherently going to be some inconsistency
here, since there's no such thing as a transactional sequence change
otherwise. I don't see the point of going way out of our way to move
the inconsistencies around.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
