From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Cc: | Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor(at)dunaweb(dot)hu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ? |
Date: | 2007-03-02 22:38:31 |
Message-ID: | 20070302223831.GB28490@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 11:26:23 +0100,
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>
> But just postponing nextval() until after the uniqueness checks
> only decreases the *probability* of non-monotonic values, and
> *does not* preven them. Consindert two transactions
>
> A: begin ;
> B: Begin ;
> A: insert ... -- IDENTITY generates value 1
> B: insert .. -- IDENTITY generates value 2
> A: rollback ;
> B: commit ;
>
> Now there is a record with IDENTITY 2, but not with 1. The *only*
> way to fix this is to *not* use a sequence, but rather do
> lock table t in exclusive mode ;
> select max(identity)+1 from t ;
> to generate the identity - but of course this prevents any concurrent
> inserts, which will make this unuseable for any larger database.
While this demonstrates that you can get holes in the sequence, it doesn't
show an example that is not monotonic.
> Note that this is not a deficency of postgres sequences - there is no
> way to guarantee stricly monotonic values while allowing concurrent
> selects at the same time. (Other than lazyly assigning the values, but
> this needs to be done by the application)
With in a single session and barring wrap-around you will get monotonicly
increasing values. You are correct that there is no such guaranty between
separate sessions that overlap in time.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-02 22:46:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-02 22:37:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |