From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Accessing schema data in information schema |
Date: | 2006-03-22 22:10:54 |
Message-ID: | 1143065455.3868.3.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-03-22 kell 16:11, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > How does one get at the missing fields. The only way I know is
> > selecting from the sequence, but how does one work this into this
> > query? Somehow it seems that these things should be stored in a real
> > system catalog.
>
> Yeah. I've occasionally toyed with the idea that sequences should be
> rows in a single catalog instead of independent tables as they are now.
> This would make for a much smaller disk footprint (with consequent I/O
> savings) and would solve problems like the one you have.
Would it not make page locking problems much worse with all get_next()'s
competeing to update the same page?
At least unless you reserve one page for each sequence.
-------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-22 22:29:08 | Re: Accessing schema data in information schema |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-22 21:39:21 | Re: Recursive calls to functions that return sets |