From: | "Frank Millman" <frank(at)chagford(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Locking question |
Date: | 2016-10-26 10:18:19 |
Message-ID: | D11963DCEDE24E9E8E8D5FA1A3913207@FrankLaptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Frank Millman
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Locking question
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Frank Millman wrote:
> Hi all
> >
> > I am designing an inventory application, and I want to ensure that the stock level of any item cannot go negative.
> >
[...]
>
> What I would do, is to add trigger on inv_alloc, than when you
> insert/update/delete row there, it updates appropriate row in inv_rec by
> correct number.
>
> Then, I'd add check on inv_rec to make sure qty is never < 0.
>
Thanks, depesz
I can see how that would work, but I have two comments.
1. I am writing my application to support 3 databases – PostgreSQL, sqlite3, and MS SQL Server. Because they are all so different when it comes to triggers and procedures, I am trying to avoid using them, and do as much within the application as possible.
2. I think you are suggesting maintaining a ‘balance’ column on inv_rec. This raises the question of whether or when you should create and maintain a column if the same information could be derived from other sources. I realise that this is a judgement call, and sometimes I struggle to get the balance right. Is this a situation where people would agree that it is warranted?
I would still appreciate some feedback as to whether my proposed solution would work.
Thanks
Frank
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gary Evans | 2016-10-26 10:30:17 | Re: Locking question |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2016-10-26 08:46:56 | Re: Locking question |