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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
