From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_locks needs a facelift |
Date: | 2005-05-04 04:02:30 |
Message-ID: | 20050504040230.GT47820@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:43:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > I wish you wouldn't since http://rrs.decibel.org uses it.
>
> Don't worry, I'll veto any immediate removal of functionality ;-)
Yes, but will core (or worse, that Bruce guy) over-ride your veto? ;P
> The correct way to handle this is to add some better userlock
> functionality and deprecate what's there. We can remove the crufty
> stuff in a release or three after it's been officially deprecated
> ... but there is no reason to remove it immediately. It won't conflict
> with a better version, just exist alongside.
Hopefully by then I'll have come up with a reason not to support
pre-8.whenever_userlock_is_improved. :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-04 04:13:26 | Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-04 03:54:19 | Re: A proper fix for the conversion-function problem |