X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52EC9FA6B3 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:17:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62399-02 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:17:38 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from grzm.com (grzm.com [200.46.204.98]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115749FA6B1 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:17:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.251]) by grzm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC62E127E40A for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:17:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from grzm.com ([200.46.204.98]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58918-06; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:17:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [141.117.21.211] (s21-211.resnet.ryerson.ca [141.117.21.211]) by grzm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104A1127C4ED; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:17:11 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <20060707105847.J77811@megazone.bigpanda.com> References: <279E27B5-183F-4520-BC43-A726A50646EF@seespotcode.net> <20060707105847.J77811@megazone.bigpanda.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6738B213-C52B-4F71-9134-85B45A4922B9@seespotcode.net> Cc: "Weber, Johann (ISS Kassel)" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Glaesemann Subject: Re: Atomar SQL Statement Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 00:17:12 -0400 To: Stephan Szabo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/125 X-Sequence-Number: 25699 On Jul 7, 2006, at 14:07 , Stephan Szabo wrote: > I don't think he is, because I don't think the issue is the SERIAL > behavior, but instead the NOT EXISTS behavior. I guess I should have been clearer in the issue I was addressing, which is whether or not a separate transaction could slip in and interrupt his transaction, which my understanding is that it can't. I personally would handle the insert if necessary/select in a different way, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong with his statement. I assumed that he does have a UNIQUE constraint on the email address field. I should definitely know better than to make assumption. Sorry, Johann, for not addressing your complete email, but rather just a portion of it. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net