UPDATE statements are not completely atomic in that index entries are
updated
separately for each row. A query interchanging two values within a column
declared
UNIQUE will fail due to the attempt of inserting a duplicate temporarily. It
seems
like Postgres validates constraints on indexes each time the implementation
modifies
the index, rather than on the logical transaction boundaries.
I tried:
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col =
CASE WHEN unique_col = firstvalue THEN secondvalue
ELSE firstvalue
END
WHERE unique_col = firstvalue
OR unique_col = secondvalue
And:
BEGIN;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col = firstvalue WHERE unique_col = secondvalue;
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col = secondvalue WHERE unique_col = firstvalue;
COMMIT;
And both queries fail.
Of course I could prevent this by first updating one of the entries with a
dummy value:
BEGIN;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col = dummy WHERE unique_col = secondvalue;
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col = secondvalue WHERE unique_col = firstvalue;
UPDATE sometable SET unique_col = firstvalue WHERE unique_col = dummy;
COMMIT;
But that's more like in a 3GL language and does not cleanly express what I
want.
How can I interchange two values in a unique column? Am I missing something
really
obvious (like a swap statement)? Is there any reason besides performance for
not
making index accesses fully ACID-compliant? Doesn't MVCC require this
anyway?
Thanks for your time, Daniel Alvarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
