Re: Another unexpected behaviour

Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> The real question is why anyone would actually perform that kind of
> UPDATE. It doesn't really make much sense to increment a PK value.
>
> PostgreSQL is good at supporting things people want and need, so
> differences do exist in places that are fairly low priority.
>

I agree it makes less sense to modify PK that way and that's not what we
were doing.

The case we went through is that we have a unique index on a table that
contains a date field. While we rolled the dates forward it happens to
"collide" with the existing data in the transient state and failed the
update. I don't think this is that weird.

There are different ways to get around the way PostgreSQL behaves, just a
little surprise about that since that doesn't seem right from a purist's
point of view.

--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Another-unexpected-behaviour-tp4610242p4616541.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.