Horton

Re: pgpool versus sequences

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, mangoo <mangoo@wpkg.org>, "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, "Kevin.Grittner" <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-06-02T14:31:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rearrange ALTER TABLE syntax processing as per my recent proposal: the

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Yeah -- why is LOCK SEQUENCE foo_seq not allowed? Seems a simple thing
>> to have.

> It cause a grammar conflict.

That's a lot of work for a purely cosmetic issue, though.  What would be
trivial is to let this work:

regression=# create sequence s1;
CREATE SEQUENCE
regression=# begin;
BEGIN
regression=# lock table s1;
ERROR:  "s1" is not a table

We should do that anyway, even if we put in the effort to support the
other syntax.

			regards, tom lane