Re: sequence locking

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sequence locking
Date: 2011-09-21 16:54:34
Message-ID: CAHyXU0xXqwnAjPnv=nyh=LTay=UV0=tqOQiypzc5da2dchrRLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> - Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
>> locking is not allowed for sequences
>
>> Any arguments against allowing it again? It seems to have been
>> allowed in prehistoric times.
>
> It would be nice to allow it.  I've had to create a dummy table just
> to use for locking a sequence (by convention).

another (better?) way is advisory locks...

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-09-21 16:55:03 Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-09-21 16:52:18 Remastering using streaming only replication?