From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Cc: robertmhaas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: mangoo <mangoo@wpkg.org>
Cc: scott.marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin.Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:02:09 -0400
Message-ID: <29613.1306972929@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1306971997-sup-5549@alvh.no-ip.org>
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>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mié jun 01 19:08:16 -0400 2011:
>> What pgpool really wanted to do was locking sequence tables, not
>> locking rows in sequences. I wonder why the former is not allowed.
> Yeah -- why is LOCK SEQUENCE foo_seq not allowed? Seems a simple thing
> to have.
I don't see any particular reason to continue to disallow it, but does
that actually represent a workable solution path for pgpool? Switching
over to that would fail on older servers.
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, alvherre@commandprompt.com, ishii@postgresql.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, mangoo@wpkg.org, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences
In-Reply-To: <29613.1306972929@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