| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: advisory locks and permissions |
| Date: | 2006-09-22 19:09:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200609221909.k8MJ9QM12380@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm disinclined to change that, because it would probably break existing
> >> client-side code for little gain.
>
> > I think clarity suggests we should make the heading match the feature,
> > i.e call it "advisory" rather than "userlock". We changed the API, I
> > don't see why keeping the heading makes sense.
>
> (a) we changed a *different* part of the API; I don't see how that
> licenses us to whack around anything that's marginally related.
>
> (b) we put up that pgfoundry module so that there would be a backward
> compatible solution. Won't be very backward compatible if the locks
> look different in pg_locks.
But is anyone going to know what userlocks is in 1-2 years? We have few
people using /contrib/userlocks, but in the future, I bet we have a lot
more people using advisory locks, and being confused.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-22 19:11:09 | Re: Fwd: Is the fsync() fake on FreeBSD6.1? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-09-22 19:08:08 | Re: advisory locks and permissions |