On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> > > > concurrency issues. ;-)
> > >
> > > Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
> >
> > Isn't that what Bruce just said? ;^)
>
> I suppose so. I took what Bruce said to be that multiple users could
> get the same ID.
>
> I keep having developers want to make their own table for a sequence,
> then use id = id + 1 -- so they hold a lock on it for the duration of
> the transaction.
I was just funnin' with ya, but the point behind it was that either way
(with or without a lock) that using something other than a sequence is
probably a bad idea. Either way, under parallel load, you have data
consistency issues, or you have poor performance issues.
