From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | snacktime <snacktime(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: alternative to using a sequence |
Date: | 2006-08-26 15:07:33 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150608260807s7730644fj5c9f1bcfeb1a0101@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/26/06, snacktime <snacktime(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have an application that processes financial transactions. Each of
> these transactions needs to be sent with a sequence number. It starts
> at 1 and resets to 1 once it hits 8000. I'm trying to think of the
> most elegant solution without having to create a sequence for each
> user (there are hundreds). There is a table that holds the
> configuration parameters for each merchant, so a field in that table
> to hold the sequence number would be ideal. In the past I've used
> sequences as well as just a field which I query then update. Any
> other ideas?
How many sequences are we talking about?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim | 2006-08-26 18:35:56 | Can't populate database using Copy |
Previous Message | Purusothaman A | 2006-08-26 10:47:27 | Win2000 professional / Error message while installing PostgreSQL "Failed to create process: 2! ". |