| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, mangoo(at)wpkg(dot)org, scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Date: | 2011-06-02 00:15:40 |
| Message-ID: | 29868.1306973740@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Please note also that what pgpool users have got right now is a time
> bomb, which is not better than immediately-visible breakage.
BTW, so far as that goes, I suggest that we tweak nextval() and setval()
to force the sequence tuple's xmax to zero. That will provide a simple
recovery path for anyone who's at risk at the moment. Of course, this
has to go hand-in-hand with the change to forbid SELECT FOR UPDATE,
else those operations would risk breaking active tuple locks.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:28:27 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-06-02 00:08:04 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-02 00:18:44 | Re: storing TZ along timestamps |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-06-02 00:08:04 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |