Horton

Re: pgpool versus sequences

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>

View thread
From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Cc: alvherre@commandprompt.com, ishii@postgresql.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, mangoo@wpkg.org, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-06-02T00:08:04Z
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

>> 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.

pgpool will provide following method for older version of PostgreSQL.

> Probably creating a "secret" relation and acquire table locking
> on it is the way to go. This is essentially a dirty alternative for
> sequence table locking.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp