Re: sequences and "addval('myseq', value)"

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sequences and "addval('myseq', value)"
Date: 2004-06-09 16:49:19
Message-ID: 40C73F8F.3010201@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/8/2004 11:46 AM, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:

>>
>> This strikes me as a complete nonstarter.
>
> Tom, I have to chuckle here. You HATE every suggestion I ever make. I
> can't think of one thing I've suggested over the years that was ever met
> with enthusiasm. Never change. :-)

I happen to agree with Tom on this entire thread. I do not think that
sequences should be abused as a replacement for global shared variables.

I do think that PostgreSQL should instead have some sort of shared
memory segment for user variables. The accessor functions would place
locks and the like, and would have mechanisms like UNDO on rollback.
With all the limitations that has, inflexible size, garbage collection
and so on, it would yet be far superior to anything you've come up with
here.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-06-09 16:51:33 Re: thread safety tests
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-06-09 16:38:51 Re: simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated -- during INSERT