> If we're going to try to retroactively make the world safe for pgpool
> doing what it's doing, the only way is to start including sequences in
> the set of objects that are vacuumed and included in
> relfrozenxid/datfrozenxid bookkeeping. Which is a lot more overhead
> than I think is justified to clean up after a bad decision. I'm not
> even terribly sure that it would work, since nobody has ever looked at
> what would happen if nextval executed concurrently with vacuum doing
> something to a sequence. The relfrozenxid logic might have some
> difficulty with sequences that have zero relfrozenxid to start with,
> too.
What pgpool really wanted to do was locking sequence tables, not
locking rows in sequences. I wonder why the former is not allowed.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
