| From: | Michael Chaney <mdchaney(at)michaelchaney(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Moving from MySQL to PGSQL....some questions (multilevel |
| Date: | 2004-03-05 02:10:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20040305021037.GC15229@michaelchaney.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:50:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If I understood the requirements correctly, it might be sufficient to
> put a unique index on (id1,id2). If two transactions simultaneously try
> to insert for the same id1, one would get a duplicate-index-entry
> failure, and it would have to retry. The advantage is you take no
> table-wide lock. So if the normal usage pattern involves lots of
> concurrent inserts for different id1 values, you'd come out ahead.
> Whether that applies, or is worth the hassle of a retry loop in the
> application, I can't tell from the info we've been given.
Not a bad idea, but probably best to move it into a stored procedure in
that case.
Michael
--
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdchaney(at)michaelchaney(dot)com
http://www.michaelchaney.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Glen Parker | 2004-03-05 02:12:36 | Re: ERROR: function round(double precision, integer) does |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-03-05 01:25:38 | Re: ERROR: function round(double precision, integer) does |