On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@mail.com> wrote: > updating a "last_used" number in a table and > using the result (if it is *is* critical that there are no gaps in > the numbers).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't: update some_table set last_used=last_used+1 returning last_used simply block until the other transaction is committed/rolled back? That avoids all the issues of serialization AND retrying transactions. Or is the delay itself a problem? ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
