Horton

Re: pgpool versus sequences

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2011-06-02T14:42:37Z
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

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

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.  -1 from me on extending that
mess to more places.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company