From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, 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 20:09:36 |
Message-ID: | 3729.1158610176@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> yes, i can explain it in detail, and am willing to kick in some
> documentation.
Ah-hah, you're on the hook for docs then ;-).
I'm going to go ahead with implementing it in-core per my last proposal:
void pg_advisory_lock(int8) wait
void pg_advisory_lock_shared(int8) wait
bool pg_try_advisory_lock(int8) no wait
bool pg_try_advisory_lock_shared(int8) no wait
bool pg_advisory_unlock(int8) returns T if successful
bool pg_advisory_unlock_shared(int8) returns T if successful
plus all the above taking 2 int4's, plus
void pg_advisory_unlock_all()
but am happy to let someone else do the docs.
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 ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-18 20:23:41 | Re: An Idea for OID conflicts |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-09-18 20:05:31 | Re: 8.2 beta blockers |