Re: pgpool versus sequences
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTimUw2BP4SQjHTLfOv-ojT5EyU6DnQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgpool versus sequences (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> Yeah -- why is LOCK SEQUENCE foo_seq not allowed? Seems a simple thing >>> to have. > >> It cause a grammar conflict. > > That's a lot of work for a purely cosmetic issue, though. What would be > trivial is to let this work: > > regression=# create sequence s1; > CREATE SEQUENCE > regression=# begin; > BEGIN > regression=# lock table s1; > ERROR: "s1" is not a table > > We should do that anyway, even if we put in the effort to support the > other syntax. Ugh. We are already stuck supporting all kinds of backward compatibility cruft in tablecmds.c as a result of the fact that you used to have to use ALTER TABLE to operate on views and sequences. The whole thing is confusing and a mess. -1 from me on extending that mess to more places. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: