Recently, in preparation for migrating an application to postgres, I
got to this part of the manual (which is *excellent* so far, by the
way):
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/functions-sequence.html
A quick check with the folks on #postgresql confirmed my
understanding, which was
Hi Peter,
All you need to do is define your own sequence with an
increment of 500. Look at:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-createsequence.html
Regards,
Ken
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:56:18PM -0400, Peter Crabtree wrote:
Recently, in preparation for migrating an application to
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:07:27PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
Hi Peter,
All you need to do is define your own sequence with an
increment of 500. Look at:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-createsequence.html
This is often not enough. For example - I want standard increment
Peter Crabtree peter.crabt...@gmail.com writes:
Now, I was reminded that I could simply do this:
SELECT nextval('my_seq') FROM generate_series(1, 500);
But of course then I would have no guarantee that I would get a
contiguous block of ids,
The existing cache behavior will already handle
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:07:27PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
Hi Peter,
All you need to do is define your own sequence with an
increment of 500. Look at:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Crabtree peter.crabt...@gmail.com writes:
Now, I was reminded that I could simply do this:
SELECT nextval('my_seq') FROM generate_series(1, 500);
But of course then I would have no guarantee that I would get a
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:07:27PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
Hi Peter,
All you need to do is define your own sequence with an
Peter Crabtree peter.crabt...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
If we do this, I'm inclined to think that the extra argument to
nextval() should be treated as overriding the base increment rather
than specifying a multiplier for it. Â
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Crabtree peter.crabt...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
If we do this, I'm inclined to think that the extra argument to
nextval() should be treated as
