> Actually, Robert Haas has just proposed to add LOCK for non-table > objects (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00472.php). > Last part of that thread is Robert asking for another use case (there > are already 2 use cases, not sure how valid they are though).
Interesting. I'll look into the thread and join the discussion if necessary. Thanks for heading up. > So, this could be one more use case. Probably you can also ask to keep > FOR UPDATE, and if core agree on not change current misbehaviour... > you won't be praising all days that this inconsistency is not found... Yeah, no way:-) Pgpool-II is fully depending on PostgreSQL implementation. This often brings us headaches. Sequence is one of such things. The other is extended protocol design. Probably 1/3 of time of total pgpool development effort in my company is consumed for supporting the protocol:-< -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
