On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:50:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > If I understood the requirements correctly, it might be sufficient to > put a unique index on (id1,id2). If two transactions simultaneously try > to insert for the same id1, one would get a duplicate-index-entry > failure, and it would have to retry. The advantage is you take no > table-wide lock. So if the normal usage pattern involves lots of > concurrent inserts for different id1 values, you'd come out ahead. > Whether that applies, or is worth the hassle of a retry loop in the > application, I can't tell from the info we've been given.
Not a bad idea, but probably best to move it into a stored procedure in that case. Michael -- Michael Darrin Chaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.michaelchaney.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
