On 7/12/06, Don Arbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Jay Parlar wrote: > > > > Is there a better way to do this? More specifically, an atomic way to > > generate and set the new unique_id? I can't just use the autogenerated > > 'id' primary key as an unique identifier, because I have a list of > > legacy unique_id values which I have to initially populate the db > > with. > > > > > You could populate your database with the legacy values, then set the > sequence start number to the number following those. > > You can do this in postgres with the setval function. >
What about a table lock? My whole system is currently implemented with the unique_id column, so it'd be much easier if I didn't have to change that. The stuff that happens inside the view is minimal, so there'd be very little performance loss if one process was waiting for the lock to release. Jay P. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
