From: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | select for update |
Date: | 2011-04-22 17:49:54 |
Message-ID: | 4DB1BFC2.7020806@emolecules.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I thought I understood "select ... for update," but maybe not.
We have a number of separate databases and a unique integer identifier that's supposed to be global across all databases. A single "archive" database is used to issue the next available ID when a process wants to create a new object. The sequence of operations goes like this (pseudo-code):
/* start a transaction *
begin;
/* see if an objectid has been returned for re-use */
select objectid from archive where db_id is null limit 1 for update
/* no ID available? issue a new one */
if (objectid is null)
new_id = select nextval('object_id_sequence')
insert into archive(objectid, db_id) values('new_id', 'new_id')
/* ID available? claim it */
else
update archive set db_id = this_db_id where objectid
commit
The problem is that very occasionally the same ID will be issued twice. I don't see how this can be. Doesn't the "for update" guarantee that no other process can claim that same row?
Thanks,
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Splivalo | 2011-04-22 18:35:18 | Re: Reseting statistics, cluster wide |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2011-04-22 16:54:11 | Re: unix timestamp |