Re: Locking entire database - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Panagiwths Pediadiths |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Locking entire database |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.58.0709161344450.10722@calliope Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Locking entire database (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Locking entire database
|
List | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Ron Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/15/07 19:59, Panagiwths Pediadiths wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > On 09/15/07 03:28, Panagiwths Pediadiths wrote: > >>>> Thats the fun part, I actually need to allow duplicates in specific cases > >>>> but not in this one :) > > Same table? > >> Yup > > > >>>> Shouldn't the serializable level prevent these duplicates? As I understand > >>>> it serializable > >>>> should give the same result as if the transactions were performed the one > >>>> after the other. > > (Please don't top-post.) > > > > Seems to me that you are confused as to the "essence" of relational > > databases. In other words, the best (heck, even the acceptable) way > > to design schemas, and how to control the flow of data in order to > > achieve your ultimate "data" goal. > > > > > >> I dont see why the case i suggest is so obscene > > Then you have not explained it to us clearly. > > (English language difficulties *are* an acceptable excuse...) > > >> More specifically consider a table with to columns where the unique index > >> is the two columns together > > > >> However at some stage of the application I want to insert into the > >> database only if there is no element > >> with a value at column 1 equal to that that i intend to insert. > > > >> Oddly, in serializable isolation mode, two transactions performing such an > >> insertion in parallel one of the > >> two transaction hits the phantom read case, whereas it should be protected > >> by the isolation level. > > It should, *if* you do it properly. > > IOW, is your program structured like: > BEGIN > SELECT COUNT(*) INTO :cnt > FROM rdf WHERE segment_1 = :some_val; > IF :cnt == 1 THEN > do one thing > ELSE > do another > END IF; > COMMIT; > > or is it structured: > BEGIN > SELECT COUNT(*) INTO :cnt > FROM rdf WHERE segment_1 = :some_val; > COMMIT; > BEGIN > IF :cnt == 1 THEN > do one thing > ELSE > do another > END IF; > COMMIT; Everything is done in the context of one transaction e.g. BEGIN SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE INSERT INTO table SELECT somwhere.value1, somewhere.value2 FROM somewhere WHERE somewhere.value1 NOT IN ( SELECT table.segment1 FROM table) END Many transactions doing this in parallel end up inserting the value many times. Could i be missing something regarding how to set up the isolation level? Thanks! > > >>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 9/14/07, Panagiotis Pediaditis <pped@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >>>>>> A simpler example, > >>>>>> In the context of one transaction i do many queries of the form > >>>>>> INSERT INTO table value WHERE value NOT IN TABLE; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If i have 2 processes running the same 100s of these at the same time i > >>>>>> end up with duplicates. > >>>>>> Even with isolation set to serializable > >>>>>> any ideas? > >>>>> Unique index? > > - -- > Ron Johnson, Jr. > Jefferson LA USA > > Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. > Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFG7IaUS9HxQb37XmcRAq/bAJwNlJG2BNqfTbXPxd2sa6GsQn3nwQCfXaDo > BMR4Lple09XnPB5w11geonY= > =g8lJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >
pgsql-general by date: