Re: Atomicity? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Atomicity?
Date
Msg-id 200608282146.01122.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Atomicity?  (Naz Gassiep <naz@mira.net>)
Responses Re: Atomicity?  (Naz Gassiep <naz@mira.net>)
Re: Atomicity?  (Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>)
List pgsql-general
Naz Gassiep wrote:
> If the violation of the constraint really is being caused
> WITHIN the query, doesn't that violate the principle of atomicity?
> I.e., operations and entities should be considered a single entire
> construct rather than a collection of smaller, discrete parts.

The principle of atomicity merely says that transactions are either
performed entirely or not at all.  If the transaction is not performed,
then there is no violation of atomicity.

> conwatch=# UPDATE replies SET rgt = rgt + 2 WHERE postid = 18 AND rgt
> >= 11;
> ERROR:  duplicate key violates unique constraint "replies_rgt_postid"

This is a well-known deficiency in PostgreSQL.  You will have to work
around it somehow (by changing the query, the schema, or the index).

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Brandon Aiken"
Date:
Subject: Re: Precision of data types and functions
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Atomicity?