| From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious |
| Date: | 2012-08-18 09:19:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAP-rdTZyUp-xinyOkPrSEwQzybufBoC0mpc7cNOYCHeoV_16Pg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/8/7 Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>:
> I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
> "Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
> sequences aren't transactional.
It is possible to say that they *are* transactional when considering
the following definition: nextval() doesn’t always give you “the” next
value, but “some” next value that is higher than the one gotten by any
preceding transactions.
I personally like it better to introduce this minor complexity in the
definition of sequences, rather than messing with the definition of
transactionality.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-08-18 11:36:19 | Re: [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2012-08-18 08:37:16 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: In docs, change a few cases of "not important" to "unimportant". |