On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:28 AM, alexander wrote:
> Hello
>
> I've met exactly the same problem as described here
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/95862fdc-eb2e-4533-8331-d49775b0e...@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> . For now, I use the same solution that was presented in the response
> http:/
Hello
I've met exactly the same problem as described here
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/95862fdc-eb2e-4533-8331-d49775b0e...@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
. For now, I use the same solution that was presented in the response
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/077da5f9-f783-4388-bf19-42e
>
> Is there a good way to solve this issue?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
Yes, multiple actually.
...
one db centric solution is to create a sequence for each customer id and then
nextval that specific sequence when you need a new id.
Would need to know more about the number of customers and how
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:54 PM, mirthcyy wrote:
> hi group,
>
> we need help on one postgresql locking issue:
>
> Originally we have a table like below;
>
> id bigint not null nextval('xxx)',
> customer_id int not null,
> insert_record_date timestamp not null
> ...
>
> so this id column is using a
hi group,
we need help on one postgresql locking issue:
Originally we have a table like below;
id bigint not null nextval('xxx)',
customer_id int not null,
insert_record_date timestamp not null
...
so this id column is using a sequence number that applies to all
customers. And it's the primary
