| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 02:23:05 |
| Message-ID: | 14003.1292293385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-12-14 1:08 AM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
>> In my opinion changing current behavior is not a good idea. I know some
>> software that relies on current behavior and this would break it. Maybe add
>> that as an option, or add another type of advisory lock?
> Oh, I forgot to mention. The patch doesn't change any existing
> behaviour; the new behaviour can be invoked only by adding a new boolean
> argument:
Uh, I don't think so. It sure looks like you have changed the user
lockmethod to be transactional, ie, auto-release on commit/abort. As
Szymon stated, that is an utter non-starter, because all current uses of
advisory locks consider the current behavior to be a feature not a bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-12-14 02:41:46 | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-14 02:21:41 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |