From: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
Date: | 2004-03-09 06:41:44 |
Message-ID: | 404D6728.9040203@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Oracle uses "NOWAIT" so we should go for that one.
Regards,
Hans
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> If "NOWAIT" is the choice, I could live with it. If there's no
> objection, I will go with "NOWAIT", not "NO WAIT".
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
>
>
>>Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>
>>>LOCK TABLE table NO WAIT is OK for 7.5? If ok, I will make patches
>>>against current with some docs changes.
>>
>>Dept of minor gripes: can we do this without turning "NO" into a
>>keyword? Even as a nonreserved word, I think that would be annoying.
>>"no" is a common abbreviation for "number" so I think it's likely to
>>get used as a column name.
>>
>>If Oracle spells it "NOWAIT" then I'd be much happier with that...
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2004-03-09 06:45:04 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-09 06:36:27 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2004-03-09 06:45:04 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-09 06:36:27 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |