From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Cc: mangoo@wpkg.org
Cc: scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Cc: t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Cc: Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:04:58 -0400
Message-ID: <26909.1306965898@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110601.001430.1098605953350881110.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
References: <16063.1306811813@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4DE4A652.2040301@wpkg.org>
<25524.1306848814@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20110601.001430.1098605953350881110.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
I wrote:
>>>> I think the most appropriate solution may be to disallow SELECT FOR
>>>> UPDATE/SHARE on sequences ... so if you have a good reason why we
>>>> shouldn't do so, please explain it.
Attached is a proposed patch to close off this hole. I found that
somebody had already inserted code to forbid the case for foreign
tables, so I just extended that idea a bit (by copying-and-pasting
CheckValidResultRel). Questions:
* Does anyone want to bikeshed on the wording of the error messages?
* Does anyone want to argue for not forbidding SELECT FOR UPDATE on
toast tables?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ishii@postgresql.org, mangoo@wpkg.org, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, t-ishii@sra.co.jp, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences
In-Reply-To: <26909.1306965898@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox