Re: Transaction atomicity
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transaction atomicity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45EEEA1C.5050105@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Transaction atomicity ("Jeff Hubbach" <jeff.hubbach@cha.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Transaction atomicity
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Jeff Hubbach wrote: > Why not have a compound key on this table, with an ID generated by a > sequence (one sequence, named the same, for each instance of PostgreSQL for > each office), and an Office ID that is static for each instance? Then the > merge/sync would go through without a hitch. That's what I was thinking. If you don't want to have a two-field key, for example because you can't change the schema you already have, you could still divide a range of ids for each office when you create the sequence: CREATE SEQUENCE fooseq MINVALUE 10000000 MAXVALUE 19999999 NO CYCLE Just use a different range for each office. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: