| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Any idea for serializing INSERTING SERIAL column? |
| Date: | 2011-06-01 06:30:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20110601.153044.857710717416464421.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Sorry, I'm not real familiar with pgpool, but have you thought about
>> using an advisory lock on the target table, instead of a "real" lock
>> (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE / LOCK table)? An advisory lock should not
>> interfere with autovacuum. Obviously, this would only work if all the
>> INSERTs in your example were coming from a single application (i.e.
>> pgpool) which would honor the advisory lock.
>
> Problem with the advisory lock is, it will not work if the target
> table is empty.
Oops. I was wrong. the key for advisory lock needs to be a unique
value, but not necessarily a row value in a table. Seems this is the
way I should go(though need to be carefull since the lock is not
released even after a transaction ends). Thanks!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-06-01 07:03:29 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-01 04:24:31 | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |