And what might a future version of PostgreSQL, or current versions of other RDMBS's do to prevent that?
Mike Mascari wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Ian Barwick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wednesday 25 June 2003 21:37, Mike Mascari wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I proposed that same solution 3 years ago. Tom shoots it down:
>>>>
>>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3A4D611
>>>>6.1A613402%40mascari.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMike%2BMascari%2BINSERT%2
>>>>BNOT%2BEXISTS%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den
>>>>
>>>>Reuben must be prepared for unique key violation, I'm afraid. And,
>>>>despite the optimism in the link, we still don't have savepoints. :-(
>>>
>>>aha, useful to know. Thanks.
>>
>>Oh yeah, in my example you need to do a select for update to be race safe.
>>
>
>
> But if two simultaneous "selects for update" fail to find rows, both
> clients will then attempt the INSERT, which will cause one of them to
> abort due to a unique key violation. In these "replace" scenarios, the
> application must be prepared for the unique key violation with the
> current version of PostgreSQL.
>
> Mike Mascari
> mascarm@mascari.com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
