On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: [snip] > In summary, > > 1) "LOCK table foo" cannot be used because of conflict with autovacuum > 2) "LOCK sequence" just doesn't work > 3) "SELECT 1 FROM LOCK sequece" fails after XID wraparound > > If you have other idea to serialize concurrent INSERT to a table, I > would like to hear from you.
Sorry, I'm not real familiar with pgpool, but have you thought about using an advisory lock on the target table, instead of a "real" lock (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE / LOCK table)? An advisory lock should not interfere with autovacuum. Obviously, this would only work if all the INSERTs in your example were coming from a single application (i.e. pgpool) which would honor the advisory lock. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
