On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
>> wrote:
>>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
>>>
Any argu
Andres Freund 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 exclusive one wou
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:24:55 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
> > Andres Freund 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 i
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Andres Freund 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 think that it used to be allowed, it'
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:03:17 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> - Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
> >>> locking is not allowed for sequences
> >>>
> >>>
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> Andres Freund 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
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Andres Freund 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
Andres Freund 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 u
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 do
