Re: Stupidity or sequences?
From: Hans Forbrich <fuzzy.graybeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:21:09 -0600
Message-ID: <51693195.30108_at_gmail.com>
On 12/04/2013 11:56 PM, Nuno Souto wrote:
> One way I've seen is to generate them in a single INSERT into a
> table_of_pending_cheques (topc) statement, using a sequence . This
> guarantees the serial numbering and by committing after the INSERT,
Which lifts at least part of the 'concurrency' issue, by placing the insert into a single session.
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:21:09 -0600
Message-ID: <51693195.30108_at_gmail.com>
On 12/04/2013 11:56 PM, Nuno Souto wrote:
> One way I've seen is to generate them in a single INSERT into a
> table_of_pending_cheques (topc) statement, using a sequence . This
> guarantees the serial numbering and by committing after the INSERT,
Which lifts at least part of the 'concurrency' issue, by placing the insert into a single session.
The challenge is to define the requirements properly, to understand what is required - uniqueness or [gapless] serialization or ... - and code against that. :-)
/Hans
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sat Apr 13 2013 - 12:21:09 CEST