On 4 Dec 2002 at 20:41, Hannu Krosing wrote: > hannu=# update seq set max_value = 99; > ERROR: You can't change sequence relation seq > hannu=# update pg_class set relkind = 'r' where relname = 'seq'; > UPDATE 1 > hannu=# update seq set max_value = 99; > UPDATE 1 > hannu=# update pg_class set relkind = 'S' where relname = 'seq'; > UPDATE 1 > hannu=# select * from seq; > sequence_name | last_value | increment_by | max_value | min_value | > cache_value | log_cnt | is_cycled | is_called > >---------------+------------+--------------+-----------+-----------+-------------+---------+-----------+----------- > seq | 1 | 1 | 99 | 1 > | 1 | 1 | f | f
That makes me wonder. If sequense is treated like a single column single row table and it's value is guarenteed to be increasing even in case of aborted transaction, is it correct to say that postgresql already has nested transactions, albeit dormant? Bye Shridhar -- Zero Defects, n.: The result of shutting down a production line. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
