From: | Rafa Couto <rafacouto(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Hammond <ahammond(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction in plpgslq |
Date: | 2005-05-24 10:40:55 |
Message-ID: | 22df564b050524034045f8c174@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
2005/5/20, Andrew Hammond <ahammond(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>:
> The solution to your problem is locking (or concurrency control if you
> prefer). While we're at it, we might as well optimize your statement a
> little too using ORDER BY with LIMIT instead of min().
>
> SELECT id INTO _contacto_id
> FROM contactos
> WHERE contactos.operadora_id IS NULL
> AND contactos.actividad_id > = _actividad_id
> ORDER BY id LIMIT 1
> FOR UPDATE;
>
> Take a look at the "FOR UPDATE" section of the SELECT description for an
> explanation of how this works.
I understand "FOR UPDATE" clause is locking while is selecting rows
only. It does not secure atomic execution from 'SELECT' to 'UPDATE' in
next statement. Is not it?
--
Rafa Couto (caligari)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan B. | 2005-05-24 11:00:36 | Re: Transaction in plpgslq |
Previous Message | Szűcs Gábor | 2005-05-24 10:39:04 | Re: could not devise a query plan |