Timeline for Is it safe to insert the newest row with SELECT INTO?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 20:52 | history | edited | user1822 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 20:49 | vote | accept | thousandsofthem | ||
| Jan 17, 2019 at 20:48 | history | edited | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 32 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | Can you mark the answer as chosen if you accept it (I'm guessing so since ou awarded the bounty) | |
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 20:33 | history | bounty ended | thousandsofthem | ||
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 20:33 | history | notice removed | thousandsofthem | ||
| Jan 17, 2019 at 16:32 | answer | added | Evan Carroll | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 16:25 | answer | added | Joe W | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 16:08 | history | edited | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 73 characters in body
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 10:21 | comment | added | MarcoP |
What do you mean with: Will INSERT INTO ... SELECT(...) be enough? this wont work: (assuming account_id = 1 and change = 20) insert into transactions (account_id,change,balance) select 1,20,(balance+20) from transactions WHERE account_id = 1 ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1 for update;
|
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 10:14 | comment | added | Arkhena | If you want to do it that way (and that way is wrong as explained by a_horse_with_no_name) you should consider using the serializable isolation level. You'll find more informations about it in Postgres documentation (postgresql.org/docs/11/transaction-iso.html). | |
| Jan 16, 2019 at 15:41 | comment | added | HelloWorld | You're either going to have to use table locks, or you could make another table with balance and use a trigger. | |
| S Jan 13, 2019 at 10:30 | history | bounty started | thousandsofthem | ||
| S Jan 13, 2019 at 10:30 | history | notice added | thousandsofthem | Draw attention | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 15:29 | comment | added | thousandsofthem | @a_horse_with_no_name it's way slower, also keeping calculated balance prevents just updating historic records | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 15:09 | comment | added | user1822 | You shouldn't be storing the balance, but calculate it from the existing transactions. | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 15:05 | answer | added | jjanes | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 12:33 | comment | added | thousandsofthem | > Just do it in the same connection/transaction. There are no guarantee still without database support. Stuff happens. | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 11:50 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ | @Philᵀᴹ that would still allow 2 transactions to both add 100 to the latest balance (say it was 50) and have 2 rows inserted with balance 150. | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 10:44 | comment | added | Philᵀᴹ | Just do it in the same connection/transaction. Do you have control over that in your code? | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 10:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 11, 2019 at 12:27 | |||||
| Jan 11, 2019 at 10:26 | history | asked | thousandsofthem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |