| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Thomas O'Connell" <tfo(at)monsterlabs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 20:23:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1037910229.56165.20.camel@jester |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> > > concurrency issues. ;-)
> >
> > Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
>
> Isn't that what Bruce just said? ;^)
I suppose so. I took what Bruce said to be that multiple users could
get the same ID.
I keep having developers want to make their own table for a sequence,
then use id = id + 1 -- so they hold a lock on it for the duration of
the transaction.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wright, Ryan P | 2002-11-21 21:16:23 | Request assistance connecting with Pg::connectdb |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 20:09:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wei Weng | 2002-11-21 20:54:03 | performance of insert/delete/update |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 20:09:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 21:52:18 | Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 20:09:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |