Re: configuring queries for concurrent updates

From: Robert Poor <rdpoor(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>
Subject: Re: configuring queries for concurrent updates
Date: 2012-06-24 07:42:18
Message-ID: CAGHqdqXzCYX4=JKS9gQMz7rQmab=b=hTmYCXQYXgLveCoE2kZA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Craig:

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> wrote:
> That [implementation of UPSERT] is incorrect; it's subject to several nasty races.
> The best article I've seen on this is here:
>
>  http://www.depesz.com/2012/06/10/why-is-upsert-so-complicated/

You're right -- that's a thorough and lucid note.

Heeding depesz's warning that advisory locks are not a GENERAL
solution, they're appropriate for my application: my code is the only
place where data is added to this particular table. So advisory locks
sound like the way to go -- I'll give that a shot.

Thank you for the pointer.

- rdp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2012-06-24 09:09:41 Re: configuring queries for concurrent updates
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2012-06-24 07:06:44 Re: configuring queries for concurrent updates