| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Laerson keler <laerson(dot)keler(at)lkmc(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6258: Lock Sequence |
| Date: | 2011-10-17 20:55:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAJKUy5jHxRa7hYZFSgk-+oVGLdtsh5JcG1HuPU_WPTP_QmCqAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> There really is not any way to generate guaranteed-hole-free sequences
> using sequence objects. If you have to have that, I'd suggest locking
> the table against other writes and then fetching MAX(id) + 1. It's not
> very fast, and it's not at all concurrent, but that's the price of
> ensuring no holes. Personally I'd rethink how badly you need that
> property.
>
another option is to create a table to use as a sequence, and lock
that table everytime you need a new value... is not concurrent also,
but at least faster... unless i'm missing something
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stan S | 2011-10-17 21:35:21 | BUG #6259: Collation Error with Citext fields |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-17 19:43:09 | Re: BUG #6258: Lock Sequence |