From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Does setval(nextval()+N) generate unique blocks of IDs? |
Date: | 2012-08-21 00:10:00 |
Message-ID: | 13192.1345507800@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> writes:
> I want to do this:
> select setval('object_id_seq', nextval('object_id_seq') + 1000, false);
> Now suppose two processes do this simultaneously. Maybe they're in
> transactions, maybe they're not. Are they guaranteed to get distinct
> blocks of IDs?
No, because the setval and the nextval are not indivisible.
> Or is it possible that each will execute nextval() and
> get N and N+1 respectively, and then do setval() to N+1000 and N+1001,
> resulting in two overlapping blocks.
Exactly.
> If the answer is, "This won't work," then what's a better way to do this?
AFAIK the only way at the moment is
* acquire some advisory lock that by convention you use for this sequence
* advance the sequence
* release advisory lock
There have been previous discussions of this type of problem, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg01031.php
but the topic doesn't seem to have come up quite often enough to
motivate anybody to do anything about it. Your particular case could be
handled by a variant of nextval() with a number-of-times-to-advance
argument, but I'm not sure if that's enough for other scenarios.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-08-21 00:59:43 | Re: Does setval(nextval()+N) generate unique blocks of IDs? |
Previous Message | Craig James | 2012-08-20 23:32:27 | Does setval(nextval()+N) generate unique blocks of IDs? |