> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Spiegelberg, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As you can see, it's only providing the key1 column and the
> sequence is
> > providing the value for the column with the constraint.
> How can this be
> > happening?
>
> Perhaps at some point y
Yes, I've seen "serial" used in other places than the primary key,
but I was referring to Greg's output. The data type for the sequence
is listed as "bigint". My thought was that the data type was listed
as "serial" for sequences. I just looked at my database and I was
wrong about that.
On May 10, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Carol Walter wrote:
And this is more than a question than an answer, but I thought that
sequences had to designated as data type "serial."
Nope... sequences are actually completely un-related to tables. You
can define a sequence that's not referenced by any table
On 5/10/07, Spiegelberg, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
List,
Check out the value for t1_s_seq on connection #1.
1: db=# select nextval('t1_s_seq');
nextval
-
1
(1 row)
And check the value for t1_s_seq on connection #2.
2: db=# select nextval('t1_s_seq');
nextval
"Spiegelberg, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you can see, it's only providing the key1 column and the sequence is
> providing the value for the column with the constraint. How can this be
> happening?
Perhaps at some point you manually inserted an id value past the
then-current sequence v
Greg,
Since Postgres allows you to insert a value into a field that is
designated as a sequence number, is it possible that one was entered
that the sequence tried to recreate?
And this is more than a question than an answer, but I thought that
sequences had to designated as data type "se
List,
We're using 8.2.1 in RedHat ES 4 here and I have a simple two column
table: data_keys1.
Table "public.data_keys1"
Column | Type |Modifiers
++--
---
id | bigint | no
