On Feb 20, 2008 8:32 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tall Paul has inherited an application which uses a
> single connection for all database operations, and is a swing app
> which has callbacks which do the following
>
> Callback code
>
> grab the global connection object
> create a statement
> do something
> close statement
>
> in this scenario, since currval has connection scope if two callbacks
> are called at the same time, only one will have the right answer .
>
> Paul am I correct in my assumptions above ?
Pretty much, except with the added complication that there are a dozen
or so daemons that are also updating the same tables, and up until now
they've all had autocommit on. I thought the currval had transaction
scope not connection scope, at least that's what my testing in pgsql
seemed to indicate, which is why I stated that autocommit was a
problem.
Are you saying that if in one connection I do a nextval and commit,
and somebody else in a different connection does a hundred nextvals
and commits, then 20 minutes later I do the currval I'll get the one
from my old transaction?
--
For my assured failures and derelictions I ask pardon beforehand of my
betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled, praying that in
the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this
my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may
return to me to aid, comfort and restrain.
