From: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce1@obviously.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Bitfields always atomic? Other way to store attributes?
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:47:34 -0800
Message-ID: <44270BF6.6080109@obviously.com> (raw)
Dear List;
If I have two threads modifying the same "bit" field:
thread1=> update table set bf=bf | '01000'
thread2=> update table set bf=bf | '10000'
Will this operation always be safe (e.g. result in bf='11000')? Or must
I wrap things in
explicit transactions?
My application is to give attributes to an address table. But maybe
there is a better way?
I want to mark each addresses with attributes, e.g. the person may be a
"friend", "on my holiday card list", "owe me money", be an "employee", a
"volunteer on the xxx project", or none of the above.
I could assign each role a bit.
Or, create a string field: "Friend,Money, Emp,VolXXX".
Or, create related tables:
friend_pk, address_id
cardlist_pk, address_id
money_pk, address_id, amount_owed
volunteer_pk, address_id
Any thoughts?
-Bryce Nesbitt
--
----
Visit http://www.obviously.com/
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: bryce1@obviously.com
Subject: Re: Bitfields always atomic? Other way to store attributes?
In-Reply-To: <44270BF6.6080109@obviously.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox