>> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
