From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Global Sequences |
Date: | 2012-10-18 15:41:31 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLPm=v+-e-cGesmC094rhXGC6tuUj7jrA9W7=q9wY_4=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 October 2012 16:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To make
> it even better, add some generic options that can be passed through to
> the underlying handler.
Agreed
>> Or maybe better, invent a level of indirection like a "sequence access
>> method" (comparable to index access methods) that provides a compatible
>> set of substitute functions for sequence operations. If you want to
>> override nextval() for a sequence, don't you likely also need to
>> override setval(), currval(), etc? Not to mention overriding ALTER
>> SEQUENCE's behavior.
>
> This might be better, but it's also possibly more mechanism than we
> truly need here. But then again, if we're going to end up with more
> than a handful of handlers, we probably do want to do this.
Let me have a play and see what comes out simplest. Somewhere in the
middle seems about right.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-18 15:43:07 | Re: Global Sequences |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-18 15:35:09 | Re: hash_search and out of memory |