From: Don S. <do...@se...> - 2002-10-22 14:43:34
|
So we're going with the pear sequences and the additional *_seq tables? I'll go +1 on that. I'm just paranoid of dead-locks and bottlenecks by having one table store all sequences. Don. On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Steven Levin wrote: > Hello All, > > In response to the very long thread we have had concerning the PEAR DB > and auto_increment, the development team just held a meeting to discuss > our options. The decision was made to stick with the PEAR standards. > > So here is my +1 > > Please vote :) > > |