Shane Ambler wrote: > Stephan Szabo wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jeff Frost wrote: >>> I expected these numbers to be in sync, but was suprised to see that the >>> sequence skips a values after every generate series. >>> >>> CREATE TABLE jefftest ( id serial, num int ); >>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(1,10)); >>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(11,20)); >>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(21,30)); >> It seems to do what you'd expect if you do >> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(1,10) as foo(a); >> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(11,20) as foo(a); >> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(21,30) as foo(a); >> I tried a function that raises a notice and called it as >> select f1(1), generate_series(1,10); >> and got 11 notices so it looks like there's some kind of phantom involved. > > That's interesting - might need an answer from the core hackers. > I am posting this to pgsql-hackers to get their comments and feedback. > I wouldn't count it as a bug but it could be regarded as undesirable side > effects.
Don't use set-returning functions in "scalar context". If you put them in the FROM clause, as Stephan says above, it works fine. Anywhere else they have strange behavior and they are supported only because of backwards compatibility. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
