Thanks for the clarification guys! That was not the behavior I was
expecting (as you can tell), so I learned something new today. :)
In my case I don't want an update (there are only the 2 fields, so it's
just insert or delete), so I'll fire the insert as it is (that'll get the
cases where it's no
2015-06-28 6:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Geoghegan :
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > you can protect it against this issue with locking - in this case you can
> > try "for update" clause
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/explicit-locking.html
> >
> > insert in
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> you can protect it against this issue with locking - in this case you can
> try "for update" clause
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/explicit-locking.html
>
> insert into Favorite (patronId, titleId)
> select 123, 234
> where not
2015-06-28 6:37 GMT+02:00 Larry Meadors :
> I'm running this SQL statement:
>
> insert into Favorite (patronId, titleId)
> select 123, 234
> where not exists (
> select 1 from Favorite where patronId = 123 and titleId = 234
> )
>
> It normally runs perfectly, but will rarely fail and I just can'
