| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, mangoo <mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kevin(dot)Grittner" <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Date: | 2011-06-02 14:31:58 |
| Message-ID: | 14930.1307025118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah -- why is LOCK SEQUENCE foo_seq not allowed? Seems a simple thing
>> to have.
> It cause a grammar conflict.
That's a lot of work for a purely cosmetic issue, though. What would be
trivial is to let this work:
regression=# create sequence s1;
CREATE SEQUENCE
regression=# begin;
BEGIN
regression=# lock table s1;
ERROR: "s1" is not a table
We should do that anyway, even if we put in the effort to support the
other syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:42:37 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:31:46 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Golub | 2011-06-02 14:32:15 | Re: [HACKERS] PQdeleteTuple function in libpq |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:31:46 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |