| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, robertmhaas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 00:02:09 |
| Message-ID: | 29613.1306972929@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mi 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-06-02 00:08:04 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-01 23:47:06 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-06-02 00:08:04 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-06-01 23:57:40 | Re: storing TZ along timestamps |