At 18:21 +0200 on 22/09/1999, Hutton, Rob wrote:
> Except in an active database, or possibly not so active, where another
> record is inserted between the time yours is committed and you do the
> currval. It is much safer to do a select on nextval to get the value, the
> put it in as part of your update. It eliminates the chance that you will
> get the wrong record, and there is minimal overhead.
NOT TRUE!
Sorry to shout, but currval is the *safe* way to do this. It absolutely
guarantees you get the correct number, it was designed exactly for this
purpose. Using nextval and putting the value in the table will work, but it
requires two operations for the insert, thus potentially wasting more
numbers (someone else locks the row between the nextval and the insert).
Currval works more or less like this: You have some part of memory for the
session between you and the backend. When it draws a nextval for you, it
automatically puts the number it has drawn in this session memory. The
currval operation gets this stored number. It DOES NOT get the last value
from the sequence table. That's a common misconception.
To make myself clear, let's suppose process A and process B run the same
program, where the table has two fields, one serial named "ser", the other
a data field, named "dat".
INSERT INTO the_table( dat ) VALUES ('value');
SELECT currval( 'the_table_ser_seq' );
This has an implicit nextval( 'the_table_ser_seq' ) within the INSERT.
Process Does Memory state
A initially empty
B initially empty
A INSERT 'the_table_ser_seq' = 28
B INSERT 'the_table_ser_seq' = 29
A currval 'the_table_ser_seq' = 28 --- returns 28
B currval 'the_table_ser_seq' = 29 --- returns 29
A (again) INSERT 'the_table_ser_seq' = 30
if B asks for currval, it still has 29. It will answer 29. You see?
Herouth
--
Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
Open University of Israel - Telem project
http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma
