| From: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Am I locking more than I need to? | 
| Date: | 2004-05-21 04:27:12 | 
| Message-ID: | 200405202227.12673.pgsql@bluepolka.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
On Thursday May 20 2004 8:19, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> create table products (
>   id serial primary key,
>   ...
> );
>
> create table cart_items (
>   id serial primary key,
>   cart_id int references ...,
>   prod_id int references product(id),
>   quantity int
> );
>
> The problem is, when you add the first item to "cart_items" you have to
> do an INSERT with a quantity of 1, but after that you need to do
> UPDATEs. That would seem to create a potential race condition, so in
> order for that to work it would seem you would need to do an ACCESS
> EXCLUSIVE lock on the table to make sure no other process was reading
> the table at the same time.
I'm not sure what potential race condition you see since you haven't said 
much about how your transactions fit in here.  But I would suggest you go 
with your first design and don't worry about any explicit locking 
unless/until it clearly becomes a problem.  I've built numerous things 
similar to this, and in my experience, PostgreSQL is very good about 
managing the locking in an intelligent manner if your transactions are 
reasonably grouped.
HTH.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed L. | 2004-05-21 05:09:59 | Re: postmaster shutdown failed | 
| Previous Message | Durai raj | 2004-05-21 04:11:57 | postmaster shutdown failed |