Re: pgpool versus sequences

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

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

To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, robertmhaas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, mangoo <mangoo@wpkg.org>, "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, "Kevin.Grittner" <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-06-02T00:02:09Z

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 →

Rearrange ALTER TABLE syntax processing as per my recent proposal: the
- a0b012a1ab85 8.4.0 cited

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mi jun 01 19:08:16 -0400 2011:
>> What pgpool really wanted to do was locking sequence tables, not
>> locking rows in sequences. I wonder why the former is not allowed.

> 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.

			regards, tom lane