Hi,
I find the current behaviour of locking of sequences rather problematic.
Multiple things:
- First and foremost I find it highly dangerous that ALTER SEQUENCE ... is
for the biggest part not transactional. I think about the only transaction
part is the name, owner and schema.
Sure, its
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
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
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
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
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
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.
If you
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:24:55 Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
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
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:24:55 Tom Lane wrote:
One question is what you think the lock means. I believe for
example that taking a non-exclusive regular table lock on a
sequence would not prevent other sessions from doing nextval();
even an
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov 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
