| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: In-doubt window |
| Date: | 2003-10-20 19:56:56 |
| Message-ID: | 15021.1066679816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:39:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whether the other approach would be any more future-proof is not clear
>> either.
> How standardized is row locking anyway?
Not at all, which is one reason I think that you might be fooling
yourself to imagine that a solution dependent on row locking is more
future-proof than one that depends explicitly on some Postgres-specific
behavior. The pg_locks approach is at least likely to be more obvious
about it if it breaks ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anthony W. Youngman | 2003-10-20 20:44:37 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-10-20 19:54:17 | Re: Vacuum thoughts |