Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4E5B60FC4
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:47:28 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 40464-02-5
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  2 Jun 2011 14:47:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFA3B61D4E
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:47:20 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p52ElFYE015265;
	Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, mangoo <mangoo@wpkg.org>,
	"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>,
	"Kevin.Grittner" <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences 
In-reply-to: <BANLkTimUw2BP4SQjHTLfOv-ojT5EyU6DnQ@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <26909.1306965898@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<BANLkTikCRTeZ_g-rDay4RukWOY3Q7irCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<27741.1306968830@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20110602.080816.460114267356667394.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
	<1306971997-sup-5549@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<BANLkTimgVA7mi2SP_ZVH-fsUB3VShTsMng@mail.gmail.com>
	<14930.1307025118@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<BANLkTimUw2BP4SQjHTLfOv-ojT5EyU6DnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:42:37 -0400"
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:47:15 -0400
Message-ID: <15264.1307026035@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201106/128
X-Sequence-Number: 188841

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Ugh.  We are already stuck supporting all kinds of backward
> compatibility cruft in tablecmds.c as a result of the fact that you
> used to have to use ALTER TABLE to operate on views and sequences.
> The whole thing is confusing and a mess.

[ shrug... ]  I don't find it so.  We have a convention that TABLE is
an umbrella term for all applicable relation types.  End of story.

Even if you disagree with that, the convention does exist, and making
LOCK the one command type that disobeys it doesn't seem like a good
plan.

			regards, tom lane