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 not a concurrent update failure) and catch the failure to verify that the data exists - if it does, I'll ignore the failure; if not, i'll throw an exception.
Larry
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:57 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2015-06-28 6:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@xxxxxxxxx>:On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> 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 exists (
> select 1 from Favorite where patronId = 123 and titleId = 234 for update
> )
That won't work reliably either -- a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE will still
use an MVCC snapshot. The looping + subxact pattern must be used [1]
if a duplicate violation isn't acceptable. ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
should be preferred once 9.5 is released.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/plpgsql-control-structures.html#PLPGSQL-UPSERT-EXAMPLEyes, you have true - cannot to lock, what doesn't exists in pgRegardsPavel--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
