Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert

From: Brian Dunavant <brian(at)omniti(dot)com>
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert
Date: 2015-01-13 23:11:43
Message-ID: CAJTy2e=MVuFJ0_p_E9XqkREBP+t83F2_EM+BPXOqvG6R63dcFg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

A very good point, but it does not apply as here (and in my article)
we are not using updates, only insert and select.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Brian Dunavant wrote on 13.01.2015 22:33:
>>
>> What issue are you having? I'd imagine you have a race condition on
>> the insert into hometowns, but you'd have that same race condition in
>> your app code using a more traditional 3 query version as well.
>>
>> I often use CTEs like this to make things atomic. It allows me to
>> remove transactional code out of the app and also to increase
>> performance by reducing the back-and-forth to the db.
>> http://omniti.com/seeds/writable-ctes-improve-performance
>>
>
> Craig Ringer explained some of the pitfalls of this approach here:
>
> http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/78510/why-is-cte-open-to-lost-updates
>
> which is a follow up question based on this:
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/8702291/330315
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert DiFalco 2015-01-13 23:52:34 Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert
Previous Message Thomas Kellerer 2015-01-13 23:03:33 Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert