From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: functions, transactions, key violations |
Date: | 2008-06-04 22:21:28 |
Message-ID: | 2CCF0182-0EA4-4416-B8F4-A9445A180A2D@seespotcode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jun 4, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Some other concurrent transaction could still
> insert something after the UPDATE but before the INSERT, so the unique
> constraint violation can still occur.
Yes, I saw the comment. I'm guessing I'm missing something wrt
transaction isolation level or locking. Would I need to use
SERIALIZABLE or some kind of locking? Is the function in the example
any different than the following explicit transaction (with the UPDATE
not affecting any rows)?
BEGIN;
UPDATE db SET b = data WHERE a = key;
INSERT INTO db(a,b) VALUES (key, data);
COMMIT;
I'm obviously on the cusp of learning something new, or understanding
concurrency more deeply, so I'm looking forward to your responses.
Cheers,
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2008-06-04 22:30:43 | Re: Script errors on run |
Previous Message | Ralph Smith | 2008-06-04 22:12:49 | Re: Script errors on run |