From: | "Clark C (dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec |
Date: | 2002-03-16 01:54:02 |
Message-ID: | 20020315205402.A8947@doublegemini.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
(userland comment)
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:05:33AM -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
| > But sequences should not be under transaction control. Can you
| > safely rollback a sequence? No! The only way to ensure that would
| ...
| > Placing a restriction on an application that says it must treat the values
| > returned from a sequence as if they might not be committed is absurd.
|
| Why? The fact that you are not able to rollback sequences does not
| necessary mean that you are not required to perform commit to ensure
| permanent storage of changes made to database.
I use sequences to generate message identifiers for a simple
external-to-database message passing system. I also use
them for file upload identifiers. In both cases, if the
external action (message or file upload) succeeds, I commit;
otherwise I roll-back. I assume that the datbase won't give
me a duplicate sequence... otherwise I'd have to find some
other way go get sequences or I'd have duplicate messages
or non-unique file identifiers.
With these changes is this assumption no longer valid? If
so, this change will break alot of user programs.
| And why? Just for convenience of << 1% applications which need
| to use sequences in their own, non-database, external objects?
I think you may be underestimating the amount of "external resources"
which may be associated with a datbase object. Regardless, may of the
database features in PostgreSQL are there for 1% or less of the
user base...
Best,
Clark
--
Clark C. Evans Axista, Inc.
http://www.axista.com 800.926.5525
XCOLLA Collaborative Project Management Software
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-16 02:02:25 | Re: [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-03-15 18:36:16 | Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-16 02:02:25 | Re: [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec |
Previous Message | Kyle | 2002-03-16 01:44:09 | Re: Client/Server compression? |