From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reliable and fast money transaction design |
Date: | 2007-08-29 13:37:26 |
Message-ID: | 46D57696.5090307@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/29/07 07:27, cluster wrote:
> OK, thanks. But what with the second question in which the UPDATE is
> based on a SELECT max(...) statement on another table? How can I ensure
> that no other process inserts a row between my SELECT max() and UPDATE -
> making my SELECT max() invalid?
>
> A table lock could be an option but I am only interested in blocking for
> row insertions for this particular account_id. Insertions for other
> account_ids will not make the SELECT max() invalid and should therefore
> be allowed.
Well, concurrency and transactional consistency *allows* other
processes to update the table after you start your transaction. You
just won't *see* their updates while you're inside of a transaction.
Of course, if you truly want exclusive access, you could LOCK the
table. It's well explained in the documentation...
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG1XaWS9HxQb37XmcRAi5hAKDff5j5KnqWdGKxHjCJuTwXxfPwjACfZuko
1Ic5Bq1tU3IlPP44VYyD74M=
=Sv0p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2007-08-29 13:46:07 | Re: Geographic High-Availability/Replication |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-08-29 12:38:57 | Re: Etc/% timezones |