| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Global Sequences |
| Date: | 2012-10-18 15:43:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKo_nUNUqrfe+QmGWbt-eEUOUhS3sUtDPS_XCNJV84PCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 October 2012 16:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But I'd want to see a pretty
> bulletproof argument why overriding *only* nextval is sufficient
> (and always will be) before accepting a hook for just nextval. If we
> build an equivalent amount of functionality piecemeal it's going to
> be a lot uglier than if we recognize we need this type of concept
> up front.
We discussed that we need only nextval() and setval() elsewhere, but
adding others is fairly cheap so we can chew on that when we have a
patch to discuss.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-18 15:46:50 | Re: BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-18 15:41:31 | Re: Global Sequences |