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: 2011-06-02T14:47:15Z
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:
> Ugh.  We are already stuck supporting all kinds of backward
> compatibility cruft in tablecmds.c as a result of the fact that you
> used to have to use ALTER TABLE to operate on views and sequences.
> The whole thing is confusing and a mess.

[ shrug... ]  I don't find it so.  We have a convention that TABLE is
an umbrella term for all applicable relation types.  End of story.

Even if you disagree with that, the convention does exist, and making
LOCK the one command type that disobeys it doesn't seem like a good
plan.

			regards, tom lane