Re: On duplicate ignore

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: gnanam(at)zoniac(dot)com, Atul Goel <Atul(dot)Goel(at)iggroup(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: On duplicate ignore
Date: 2012-01-19 16:53:14
Message-ID: 82hazrab2d.fsf@mid.bfk.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

* Scott Marlowe:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> wrote:
>> * Gnanakumar:
>>
>>>> Just create a unique index on EMAIL column and handle error if it comes
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestion.  Of course, I do understand that this could be
>>> enforced/imposed at the database-level at any time.  But I'm trying to find
>>> out whether this could be solved at the application layer itself.  Any
>>> thoughts/ideas?
>>
>> If you use serializable transactions in PostgreSQL 9.1, you can
>> implement such constraints in the application without additional
>> locking.  However, with concurrent writes and without an index, the rate
>> of detected serialization violations and resulting transactions aborts
>> will be high.
>
> No, you sadly can't. PostgreSQL doesn't yet support proper predicate
> locking to allow the application to be sure that the OP's original
> statement, and ones like it, don't have a race condition. A unique
> index is the only way to be sure.

Huh? This was one of the major new features in PostgreSQL 9.1.

--
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Willem Buitendyk 2012-01-19 17:27:41 Cannot connect remotely to postgresql
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2012-01-19 16:50:11 Re: On duplicate ignore