| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| Date: | 2005-02-01 22:50:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20733.1107298226@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 11:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> How about the TID?
> That wouldn't be sufficiently stable for use by client applications, I
> believe: a concurrent VACUUM FULL could mean your TID no longer points
> at what you think it does.
It'd be safe enough within the same transaction, since VACUUM can't kill
a tuple inserted by an open transaction; nor could VACUUM FULL touch the
table at all, since you'll be holding at least a writer's lock on the
table.
But this is all moot since INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING is really the way to
go, on grounds of functionality, speed, and not breaking backward
compatibility for existing client code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-01 23:08:27 | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-01 22:44:47 | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-01 23:08:27 | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-01 22:44:47 | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |