| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 14:31:46 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTingyUTptpHVPENFsEfMn4fSP5WH+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Please note also that what pgpool users have got right now is a time
> bomb, which is not better than immediately-visible breakage. I would
> prefer to try to get this change out ahead of widespread adoption of the
> broken pgpool version.
Hmm, I gather from what Tatsuo is saying at the web site that this has
only been broken since the release of 3.0 on February 23rd, so given
that I think your approach makes sense.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-02 14:31:58 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:28:27 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-02 14:31:58 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 14:28:27 | Re: pgpool versus sequences |