| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, mangoo <mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kevin(dot)Grittner" <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Date: | 2011-06-02 14:47:15 |
| Message-ID: | 15264.1307026035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-02 14:55:26 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:42:37 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-02 14:49:04 | Re: Please test peer (socket ident) auth on *BSD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-02 14:42:42 | Re: BLOB support |