| From: | Panagiwths Pediadiths <pped(at)ics(dot)forth(dot)gr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Panagiotis Pediaditis <pped(at)ics(dot)forth(dot)gr>, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Locking entire database |
| Date: | 2007-09-15 08:28:04 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.58.0709151127160.22751@calliope |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thats the fun part, I actually need to allow duplicates in specific cases
but not in this one :)
Shouldn't the serializable level prevent these duplicates? As I understand
it serializable
should give the same result as if the transactions were performed the one
after the other.
Thnx
Panagiotis
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On 9/14/07, Panagiotis Pediaditis <pped(at)ics(dot)forth(dot)gr> wrote:
> > A simpler example,
> > In the context of one transaction i do many queries of the form
> > INSERT INTO table value WHERE value NOT IN TABLE;
> >
> > If i have 2 processes running the same 100s of these at the same time i
> > end up with duplicates.
> > Even with isolation set to serializable
> > any ideas?
>
> Unique index?
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2007-09-15 08:54:49 | Re: Locking entire database |
| Previous Message | rihad | 2007-09-15 07:40:50 | getting min/max of two values |