Re: JDBC problem
От | Cedar Cox |
---|---|
Тема | Re: JDBC problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0008270849150.19334-100000@nanu.visionforisrael.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: JDBC problem (John McKown <jmckown@prodigy.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: JDBC problem
|
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, John McKown wrote: [talking about sequences] > > Question: What happens when transactions enter the picture? Will you get > > duplicate values, or holes, or does it work just fine? > > A good question to which I don't know the answer. > > However, after thinking about it a bit, I would guess that the sequence is > "locked" for the duration of the transaction. This would imply that all > other transactions which needed to access the sequence would be stalled > until this transaction ended. When the transaction ended, then sequence > would either have the highest number assigned so far, or would be rolled > back to the same value it had when the transaction started. > > The above is just my guess. If the sequence is not "locked", then I would > guess that an aborted transaction would cause the sequence to end up with > holes. Actually, multiple tables and fields can share a sequence (why > would anybody do this?). I'm not sure either, but I'm sure it could be used for something interesting.. > This means that a single table could have "holes" in the sequence. > > Under no circumstances would I expect duplicates. This 'locking' thing was what I was wondering about. If 'sequence locking' does actually take place, I don't like the idea of other transactions having to wait but it seems necessary. On the other hand, holes in a sequence shouldn't be an issue for us so 'no locking' would be just fine. Can someone confirm? I just want to make sure I have a correct understanding of how it works.. Thanks -Cedar
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: