| From: | GB Clark <postgres(at)vsservices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | friedrich nietzsche <nietzsche_psql(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] Retrieving the new "nextval" for primary keys.... |
| Date: | 2002-09-02 19:50:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20020902145033.4a621385.postgres@vsservices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:36:10 +0200 (CEST)
friedrich nietzsche <nietzsche_psql(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> One solution seems to locking table(s),
> but I prefer to leave it as last chance...
> using table locks, and the trick of writing and
> suddenly reading back from DB it probably works,
> but it doesn't seems so sexy... :)
> ciao
> danilo
>
Why would you have to lock the table? currval() is connection safe.
I would either do the insert and then do a currval() OR do a nextval()
and do the insert. Either one would work. I always just do the insert
and then call currval() to get the current serial number for the connection.
GB
--
GB Clark II | Roaming FreeBSD Admin
gclarkii(at)VSServices(dot)COM | General Geek
CTHULU for President - Why choose the lesser of two evils?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Randall Perry | 2002-09-02 20:47:10 | Re: [GENERAL] Access 'field too long' error |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-02 16:24:00 | Re: [GENERAL] Access 'field too long' error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | GB Clark | 2002-09-02 19:57:26 | Re: Retrieving the new nextval... |
| Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-08-30 20:02:53 | Re: query problem |