From: | Christopher Smith <x(at)xman(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
Date: | 2001-06-18 22:23:57 |
Message-ID: | 992903037.6594.3.camel@rivest.xdrive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-sql |
On 18 Jun 2001 18:04:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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...
You got it bang on... I thought I had isolated access to the connections
properly, but shortly after posting that last e-mail, had a eureka moment.
I presume this will make the bug go away, so I'll encourage everyone to
ignore this thread (other than as a warning ;-) until I've confirmed I
still have the problem after making the correct adjustments.
--Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2001-06-19 01:33:38 | Re: JDBC Ant Problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-18 22:04:14 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-06-18 22:59:25 | Re: Referential Integrity Question (Delete/Insert during Transaction) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-18 22:04:14 | Re: [SQL] Problems ensuring uniqueness? |