Re: Weird insert issue
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Weird insert issue |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRDMzvt3N1F2=8Qxab=mzKLU3LAYSDy12pJ3tx1_uJfWBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Weird insert issue (Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Weird insert issue
|
Список | pgsql-general |
2015-06-28 6:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> you can protect it against this issue with locking - in this case you can
> try "for update" clause
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/explicit-locking.html
>
> insert into Favorite (patronId, titleId)
> select 123, 234
> where not exists (
> select 1 from Favorite where patronId = 123 and titleId = 234 for update
> )
That won't work reliably either -- a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE will still
use an MVCC snapshot. The looping + subxact pattern must be used [1]
if a duplicate violation isn't acceptable. ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
should be preferred once 9.5 is released.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/plpgsql-control-structures.html#PLPGSQL-UPSERT-EXAMPLE
yes, you have true - cannot to lock, what doesn't exists in pg
Regards
Pavel
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: