Thank you, this helps get me on the right path. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Scott Marlowe<scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Merrick<merrick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I was hoping there would be a way to add a field the sequence table >> postgresql automatically generates so I could rely on whatever >> mechanism postgresql uses to avoid the problems described thus far. >> >> I should have included more info, it's highly likely that multiple >> users will be accessing using same customer_id when creating orders >> thus deadlocks would be an issue I would like to avoid. >> >> Having the sequence be gapless would not be a requirement. > > Hmmm. Well, are those users gonna be holding a lock while they do a > lot of hand processing work? Do they need that id before they start a > lot of complex work? In that case, you could do things two fold. > Lock the rows, create an empty but ready to go one, commit, then come > back later and update the row. > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
