Re: LOCK for non-tables

On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 17:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I'm not keen to explain to people how we broke their applications
> just
> > because we wanted to add new functionality AND avoid one
> shift/reduce
> > conflict in our SQL grammar. Avoiding changes to user code isn't
> third
> > on that list of three things I want, its first.
>
> I grow weary of discussions in which somebody argues that
> consideration X always outweighs every other consideration. We're
> doing engineering here, not theology, and there are always tradeoffs
> to be made. In this case it's my opinion that a small syntax
> adjustment is the best tradeoff.

I didn't say avoiding changes to user code *always* outweighs other
considerations, it just does so in this case, for me. I too am doing
engineering, not theology; our opinions differ in one area, that's all.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services