From: | Jean-Christophe Boggio <cat(at)thefreecat(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | postgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re[2]: Unexplained behaviour |
Date: | 2001-03-30 14:56:56 |
Message-ID: | 19927283859.20010330165656@thefreecat.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Tom,
Ref : Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:41:49 AM
TL> Your trigger will obviously fail to generate unique keys if two
TL> transactions are running concurrently, since any two transactions
TL> started in the same minute will generate the same initial key,
TL> and if they are running concurrently then neither will see the other's
TL> entry in the table. Given that, I don't know why you're bothering.
TL> Why don't you use a sequence object to generate the unique keys?
I thought I could not do something like : a table with sequence with
before-insert-trigger that would define a field based on the
already-assigned-sequence number.
I tried, it works perfect and no more errors.
Again, again, again, many thanks.
TL> (The internal queries of the trigger will appear in the log only when
TL> compiled, ie, first time through that line in a particular backend.)
Did not know that. Precious information !
--
Jean-Christophe Boggio
cat(at)thefreecat(dot)org
Independant Consultant and Developer
Delphi, Linux, Perl, PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-03-30 15:04:25 | Re: Call for platforms |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-30 14:56:50 | Re: database dirs very stange on solaris |