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.
Michael
--
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdchaney@michaelchaney.com
http://www.michaelchaney.com/