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