Re: pgpool versus sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pgpool versus sequences
Date
Msg-id 15264.1307026035@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgpool versus sequences  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgpool versus sequences
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.

[ shrug... ]  I don't find it so.  We have a convention that TABLE is
an umbrella term for all applicable relation types.  End of story.

Even if you disagree with that, the convention does exist, and making
LOCK the one command type that disobeys it doesn't seem like a good
plan.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BLOB support
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Please test peer (socket ident) auth on *BSD