| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 beta blockers |
| Date: | 2006-09-18 20:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200609181344.55293.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, Merlin,
> > As far as the PR material goes, something like "advisory locks
> > incorporated into core" would be OK, but don't make it sound like
> > there was nothing there before ...
>
> ok, thats a good compromise.
Yes, although if I'm doing this for PR, I need to use language which is
standard in the industry or I won't be understood. What about
"high-concurrency pessimistic locking mechanism"?
I don't have a problem covering this in PR even though it's not really "new":
a) it's never been in our PR before;
b) while it's been available for 4+ versions, who knew about it?
c) we have a new refactored code and cleaned up API
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-18 20:53:51 | Re: 8.2 beta blockers |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-09-18 20:30:10 | Re: 8.2 beta blockers |