Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A8BB5DBF6
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  1 Jun 2011 21:02:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 22637-09
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  2 Jun 2011 00:02:17 +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 0ED73B5DFC3
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  1 Jun 2011 21:02:16 -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 p52029hA029614;
	Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, robertmhaas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	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: <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>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:47:06 -0400"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:02:09 -0400
Message-ID: <29613.1306972929@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: 201106/83
X-Sequence-Number: 188796

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