Michael Chaney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:50:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>If I understood the requirements correctly, it might be sufficient to
>>put a unique index on (id1,id2). If two transactions simultaneously try
>>to insert for the same id1, one would get a duplicate-index-entry
>>failure, and it would have to retry. The advantage is you take no
>>table-wide lock. So if the normal usage pattern involves lots of
>>concurrent inserts for different id1 values, you'd come out ahead.
>>Whether that applies, or is worth the hassle of a retry loop in the
>>application, I can't tell from the info we've been given.
>
>
> Not a bad idea, but probably best to move it into a stored procedure in
> that case.
But there isn't any exception handling - the duplicate-index-entry
failure will abort the procedure and return to the client with an
error. The only place to loop would be in the client AFAICS.
Mike Mascari
