Re: Transaction atomicity

Jeff Hubbach wrote:
> Why not have a compound key on this table, with an ID generated by a
> sequence (one sequence, named the same, for each instance of PostgreSQL for
> each office), and an Office ID that is static for each instance? Then the
> merge/sync would go through without a hitch. 

That's what I was thinking.

If you don't want to have a two-field key, for example because you can't 
change the schema you already have, you could still divide a range of 
ids for each office when you create the sequence:

CREATE SEQUENCE fooseq MINVALUE 10000000 MAXVALUE 19999999 NO CYCLE

Just use a different range for each office.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com