From: | Bryce Nesbitt <bryce1(at)obviously(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Bitfields always atomic? Other way to store attributes? |
Date: | 2006-03-26 21:47:34 |
Message-ID: | 44270BF6.6080109@obviously.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Dear List;
If I have two threads modifying the same "bit" field:
thread1=> update table set bf=bf | '01000'
thread2=> update table set bf=bf | '10000'
Will this operation always be safe (e.g. result in bf='11000')? Or must
I wrap things in
explicit transactions?
My application is to give attributes to an address table. But maybe
there is a better way?
I want to mark each addresses with attributes, e.g. the person may be a
"friend", "on my holiday card list", "owe me money", be an "employee", a
"volunteer on the xxx project", or none of the above.
I could assign each role a bit.
Or, create a string field: "Friend,Money, Emp,VolXXX".
Or, create related tables:
friend_pk, address_id
cardlist_pk, address_id
money_pk, address_id, amount_owed
volunteer_pk, address_id
Any thoughts?
-Bryce Nesbitt
--
----
Visit http://www.obviously.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-03-27 10:41:32 | Problem using set-returning functions |
Previous Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2006-03-26 05:56:25 | Re: Expressing a result set as an array (and vice versa)? |