Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wonder whether this doesn't have a problem with concurrent access:
>
> 1. Transaction A does 'Select count into cnt', gets (say) 200.
> 2. Transaction B does 'Select count into cnt', gets 200.
> 3. Transaction A writes 201 into hits record.
> 4. Transaction B writes 201 into hits record.
>
> and variants thereof. (Even if A has already written 201, I don't think
> B will see it until A has committed...)
You're right, Tom.
> I am not too clear on MVCC yet, but I think you need "SELECT FOR UPDATE"
> or possibly an explicit lock on the hits table in order to avoid this
> problem. Vadim, any comments?
SELECT FOR UPDATE will not help: if there was not record for
particular key then nothing will be locked and
