On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:03:17 Kevin Grittner wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner > > > > <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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... > > Not under 9.0 or earlier if you want the lock to last until the end > of the transaction. Also, the fact that advisory locks are only on > numbers, without any mechanism for mapping those to character > strings, makes them poorly suited to many tasks. The usual trick is to lock on the oid of some database object. But I agree, its a poor workaround for this specific problem.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
