Opened 6 days ago
Closed 6 days ago
#35916 closed Uncategorized (worksforme)
Docs for "Automatic primary key fields" should mention surprising behavior
Reported by: | Eric Hanchrow | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | 5.1 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | documentation, automatic |
Cc: | Eric Hanchrow, Adam Zapletal | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
I spent a fair bit of time investigating an IntegrityError in my code, and eventually discovered that automatic primary key fields don't work *quite* as I expected. This is not a bug, but is surprising, and thus ought to be pointed out somewhere in the docs.
Here are the details.
I have a model which uses the default automatic primary key:
class Thing(models.Model): def __str__(self): return f"Thing #{self.pk}"
I have some code which creates instances two different ways: both with, and without, specifying a primary key:
class TheOneTestCase(TestCase): def test_whatever(self): Thing.objects.create(pk=2) Thing.objects.create() Thing.objects.create() self.assertEqual(Thing.objects.count(), 3)
When I run this code with sqlite as the database, it passes, and creates instances with primary key values of 2, 3, and 4.
However, when I run this code with postgresql as the database, the third (i.e., the last) "create" call raises an exception:
django.db.utils.IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "app_thing_pkey"
As best I can tell, this is not a bug; it's simply how Postgresql's sequences behave.
Anyway, since it surprised me, it might surprise other developers too, and thus ought to be mentioned somewhere in the docs.
Attachments (1)
Change History (9)
by , 6 days ago
Attachment: | 0001-Warn-about-surprising-behavior-of-automatic-primary-.patch added |
---|
comment:2 by , 6 days ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:3 by , 6 days ago
Easy pickings: | unset |
---|---|
Has patch: | unset |
Resolution: | → invalid |
Status: | new → closed |
Like Adam said, it's already documented.
comment:4 by , 6 days ago
Replying to Adam Zapletal:
Eric, does this part of the PostgreSQL docs already cover it?
Yes, that describes it exactly :-(. Somehow I failed to notice that section when I was debugging.
Perhaps we can include a link to that section from the topic?
comment:5 by , 6 days ago
comment:6 by , 6 days ago
Resolution: | invalid |
---|---|
Status: | closed → new |
comment:7 by , 6 days ago
It does not suffice to say "this is already documented". My point is that, despite reasonable effort, I did not encounter the existing documentation, and therefore, the docs as a whole could be improved by a link to the existing documentation, from the section that I *did* encounter.
comment:8 by , 6 days ago
Resolution: | → worksforme |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Eric, I sympathize with your frustration. Unfortunately, we cannot add links to all possible problems from all possible locations. For example, third-party database backends do not get this sort of special treatment.
Eric, Does this part of the PostgreSQL docs already cover it?
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/5.1/ref/databases/#manually-specifying-values-of-auto-incrementing-primary-keys