From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | pgpool versus sequences (was Re: [ADMIN] 'SGT DETAIL: Could not open file "pg_clog/05DC": No such file or directory' - what to do now?) |
Date: | 2011-05-31 13:33:34 |
Message-ID: | 25524.1306848814@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org> writes:
> On 31.05.2011 05:16, Tom Lane 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.
> I grepped the sources of the application using postgres, and it certainly doesn't do it.
> [ but pgpool does, as of a couple months ago ]
> This is a message explaining why it was introduced to pgpool:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.pgpool.devel/348
Too bad that wasn't mentioned on pgsql-hackers, where someone might have
pointed out the major flaws in the idea.
> 2) is pgpool behaviour correct?
No. Quite aside from the lack-of-XID-maintenance problem, the proposal
seems just plain bizarre to me. SELECT FOR UPDATE wouldn't block
nextval(), so the command doesn't actually guarantee serialization of
sequence value acquisition. Taking a table lock on the sequence could
do so, and wouldn't run into any implementation issues, so I fail to see
why that alternative was rejected. I'm also wondering a bit how one
determines *which* sequence to lock, in a case where the table has
multiple serial columns ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-31 13:45:40 | Re: Restore master from slave |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-31 09:05:24 | Re: Insert statement deletes older table records |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-31 13:34:51 | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-31 13:33:33 | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |