Re: Re: Why is unique constraint needed for upsert? (treat atomicity as optional)

On 7/23/2014 3:58 PM, Seamus Abshere wrote:
> Right - if you had a situation where that might happen, you would use 
> a slightly more advanced version of the UPSERT command (and/or add a 
> unique index).

a unique index wouldn't resolve the problem.  without one, you'd end up 
with two records, with one, you'd end up with an error.

naive programmers never seem to expect concurrency, its something that 
just happens.

-- 
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast