Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert

From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert
Date: 2015-01-13 23:03:33
Message-ID: m94885$aqq$1@ger.gmane.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brian Dunavant 2015-01-13 23:11:43 Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert
Previous Message Brian Dunavant 2015-01-13 22:21:30 Re: Simple Atomic Relationship Insert