| From: | Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Processing a work queue |
| Date: | 2007-05-01 14:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | 46375203.7040305@magproductions.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> ok, here's an example. I was thinking that my sequence idea might not
> be safe because of race conditions revolving around querying the
> sequence table. Here is how I might use advisory locks eliminate the
I've seen your name pop up regularly on this list (or are you from
freebsd-stable?), so you kind of got me scratching my head whether you
really don't understand sequences. Kind of hard to imagine... Maybe I
don't understand what you're asking.
Sequences are safe in concurrent use.
* Nextval() always returns a new number, so no two concurrent sessions
can get the same one.
* Currval() is only valid within one session after calling nextval(), so
it's number cannot have been modified by another session.
Why do you expect to need locking?
--
Alban Hertroys
alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl
magproductions b.v.
T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede
// Integrate Your World //
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-01 14:43:37 | Re: dump-restore only one table |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-01 14:40:14 | Re: [HACKERS] SOS, help me please, one problem towards the postgresql developement on windows |