Re: Retrieving last InsertedID : INSERT... RETURNING safe ?
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Retrieving last InsertedID : INSERT... RETURNING safe ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47BC2798.9010300@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Retrieving last InsertedID : INSERT... RETURNING safe ? (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Retrieving last InsertedID : INSERT... RETURNING safe ?
Re: Retrieving last InsertedID : INSERT... RETURNING safe ? |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer wrote: > > On 20-Feb-08, at 7:19 AM, Paul Tomblin wrote: > >> Dave Cramer wrote: >>>> Well, that other solution is dangerous in case multiple inserts >>>> to that table are done concurrently; a quite common usage pattern >>>> with java web applications handling multiple HTTP requests with >>>> concurrent java threads.. >>>> >>> No it is not dangerous. It is the right way to do it. There is >>> absolutely no danger in using currval in this manner. >> >> Unless you have autocommit on. >> > I was going to say there are absolutely no situations where this is not > true, however in your case autocommit or not it doesn't matter. > You have a single connection for the entire application and asynchronous > events using that connection. Autocommit or not it will not work with > currval. > > In your case you must use nextval before doing the insert. Now you lost me. By asynchronous events, do you mean NOTIFY/LISTEN? What exactly is the scenario you're talking about? One problematic scenario for nextval+currval is an INSERT trigger that calls nextval() behind your back, but you can fool any method with a trigger if you really want to. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: