> On 6/8/2004 11:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
My original suggestion was to have some sort of global variable system. I thought using an existing construct would have been more palletable. I was wrong. > > > Jan > > -- > #======================================================================# > # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # > # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # > #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings