From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Smith <x(at)xman(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
Date: | 2001-06-18 22:04:14 |
Message-ID: | 8975.992901854@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-sql |
Christopher Smith <x(at)xman(dot)org> writes:
>> Um ... surely that should be "if count > 0" ? Or was that just a
>> transcription error?
>>
>> This approach certainly ought to work as desired given the exclusive
>> lock, so a silly typo seems like a plausible explanation...
> Sorry, it is indeed a transcription error (sadly).
Oh well. The next thought, given that you mention threads, is that
you've got multiple threads issuing commands to the same backend
connection; in which case the interlocking you think you have doesn't
exist at all...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Smith | 2001-06-18 22:23:57 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
Previous Message | Christopher Smith | 2001-06-18 21:57:45 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Smith | 2001-06-18 22:23:57 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
Previous Message | Christopher Smith | 2001-06-18 21:57:45 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |