Re: pgpool versus sequences

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org, scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com, kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences
Date: 2011-06-02 00:08:04
Message-ID: 20110602.090804.687511136024504330.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

>> 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-02 00:15:40 Re: pgpool versus sequences
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-02 00:02:09 Re: pgpool versus sequences

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-02 00:15:40 Re: pgpool versus sequences
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-02 00:02:09 Re: pgpool versus sequences