why not use a GUID ? http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/163604
On 13/07/2006, at 8:08 AM, Jay Parlar wrote: > > On 7/12/06, Don Arbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Jay Parlar wrote: >>> >>> Is there a better way to do this? More specifically, an atomic >>> way to >>> generate and set the new unique_id? I can't just use the >>> autogenerated >>> 'id' primary key as an unique identifier, because I have a list of >>> legacy unique_id values which I have to initially populate the db >>> with. >>> >> >> >> You could populate your database with the legacy values, then set the >> sequence start number to the number following those. >> >> You can do this in postgres with the setval function. >> > > > What about a table lock? My whole system is currently implemented with > the unique_id column, so it'd be much easier if I didn't have to > change that. > > The stuff that happens inside the view is minimal, so there'd be very > little performance loss if one process was waiting for the lock to > release. > > Jay P. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
