On Oct 22, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Instead, maintain a counter, either in the main customer record or in an > associated (customer_id, counter) side table if you want to reduce potential > lock contention. Write a simple SQL function that uses an UPDATE ... > RETURNING statement to grab a new ID from the counter and increment it. Use > that function instead of 'nextval(seqname)' when you want an ID. The UPDATE > will take a lock out on the customer row (or side-table row if you did it > that way) that'll prevent anyone else updating it until the transaction > commits or rolls back.
Thanks for the suggestion. It seems like there should be a safe way to use max() instead of a separate counter though, as long as I can guarantee that invoice numbers never change and invoices are never deleted. Right? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
