| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disallow SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE on sequences. |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 22:58:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20110604.075850.1100045364736235952.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> and even wrap around completely. Since the row lock is ignored by nextval
> and setval, the usefulness of the operation is highly debatable anyway.
As for pgpool, this is plain wrong. The reason why pgpool uses sequene
row lock is to obtain sequence table lock like effect, which is not
currently permitted. Whether nextval and setval ignore sequence row
lock is irrelevant.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-04 19:49:10 | pgsql: Expose the "*VALUES*" alias that we generate for a stand-alone V |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-03 20:06:27 | pgsql: Fix pg_get_constraintdef to cope with NOT VALID constraints |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-03 23:14:09 | Re: Error in PQsetvalue |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-03 22:27:08 | Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint |