-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 08/01/2011 04:24, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit : >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On master we do: >>> >>> BEGIN; >>> SELECT 1 FROM t1_i_seq FOR UPDATE; >> >> and why you are allowed to execute FOR UPDATE in a sequence? i mean, >> if you can't lock the secuence it has no sense that you can lock the >> rows on it... is it not a postgres bug that we should report instead >> of exploit it? > > Not sure I want to report it.
In my opinion, *if* this is actually a bug, we must report it. It's all about code quality, sanity and fiability. > The "bug" does not hurt PostgreSQL users > in any sense, for example security issues. > > Theoreticaly we could fix this "bug" and provide "formal" way to lock > sequences instead. But I doubt PostgreSQL cores agree to provide such > new API, which is probably only benefitical to pgpool users. *If* this is a bug, what if it just accept the lock, but doesn't respect it ? > So I guess reporting the "bug" and fixing it will not benefit anyone, > on the other hand pgpool users will lose their benefit. If we rely on a bug for a feature, then the design is probably somewhat broken no ? > -- > Tatsuo Ishii > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php > Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp - -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais DBA http://www.dalibo.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0obJsACgkQXu9L1HbaT6LyLgCg5XJWmy14J3mJiiBiglyBbR2j jB0AoJtzT2eLpF3OnorF9Epm5WuQAAcU =Z2kr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
