Re: Basic locking question

From: Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Basic locking question
Date: 2005-09-06 23:25:38
Message-ID: 431E2572.9030004@silentmedia.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Right, I understand the badness of the situation, but unfortunately the
keys are externally generated and I have no control over them.

So I'm looking for "lock <tablename> in exclusive mode"?

Tom Lane wrote:

>Pretty much the only thing you can do about that is to take an exclusive
>table-level lock. This is simple but pretty awful for concurrency
>(since the lock blocks everyone else from inserting ANY key, not only
>the one you are inserting).
>
>Consider using a sequence object to generate the keys, instead.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2005-09-06 23:48:12 Re: SLOOOOOOOW
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-06 23:06:32 Re: Basic locking question