Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT
| От | Yourfriend |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABL_R4P7KVjDV8yNwis-OFp5mrE1+j7TU9pXv2-UPmqMtH34oA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
In my example, I just give each record a different ID to access it efficiently.
In our business cases, some times, we also use some prefix letter like 'SO', "PO' combining with the current year, month and then a sequence
to make a invoice ID,
for example, SO201507_1001, PO201503_1280, etc.
As these IDs would be the most important attribute to the business, so, we hope there is no gap for the IDs.
Regards,
Daojing Zhou.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Yourfriend <doudou586@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suggestion: When a conflict was found for UPSERT, don't access the
> sequence, so users can have a reasonable list of ID.
This is not technically feasible. What if the arbiter index is a serial PK?
The same thing can happen when a transaction is aborted. SERIAL is not
guaranteed to be gapless.
--
Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: