On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 17:28, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> If you know the OID of a row, PostgreSQL doesn't have a special lookup table
> to find it. That's also why they're not unique; the backend would have to
> scan through every table to find out if the next one is available.
Ahh, thats not
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 13:19, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> But your insert function needs to know something about the table it's
> inserting into. The sequences have quite predicatable names. Besides, you
> can set the name yourself (DCL does this IIRC).
No it don't know anything about the table
> No it don't know anything about the table it insert into. I simply do
> the following :
>
> 1. INSERT data (comming from another layer)
> 2. Get the last oid
> 3. SELECT * FROM the same table where oid = what I just found.
>
> I know absolutly nothing about the table, and I like it this way :-)
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 11:38, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, what I do is, declare a serate sequence, retrive next available value and
> explicitly insert it into a integer field. That avoids having to retrieve the
> latest value again.
Yeps, this is what I call an application specific implim
> That said, there is no reason why someone couldn't create a last_sequence()
> function so you could say SELECT currval( last_sequence() ). Ofcourse, if
> your table has no SERIAL field, you're stuffed either way.
Instead of SELECT currval( last_sequence() ), what about implementing
oracl type b
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 13:19, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > The only thing you need to know is the name of the primary key field. This
> > many be a problem in a generic layer. If you like you can make a UNIQUE
> > INDEX on the oid
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 12:20:42PM +0200, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 11:38, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> > Well, what I do is, declare a serate sequence, retrive next available value and
> > explicitly insert it into a integer field. That avoids having to retrieve the
> > late
On 3 Sep 2003 at 11:28, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 11:10, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> > Yes. It is correct. As of 7.3.x and onwards oids are optional at table creation
> > times. They default to be available for new objects but that is for backwards
> > compatibility I belie
