Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Weird insert issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-EXAMPLE

yes, you have true - cannot to lock, what doesn't exists in pg

Regards

Pavel


 
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux