From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Date: | 2010-12-14 00:51:05 |
Message-ID: | 4D06BF79.5080605@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-12-14 2:35 AM +0200, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 01:14 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> Oh, I forgot to mention. The patch doesn't change any existing
>> behaviour; the new behaviour can be invoked only by adding a new boolean
>> argument:
>>
>> SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1, false);
>
> Don't like adding a boolean. Nobody remembers what it is for and we have
> bugs. How about pg_advisory_xact_lock()
That's the other option I was thinking of, but didn't like that too
much. But you're right about the boolean, it is a bit hard to remember
which behaviour is which.
>> The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it.
>
> Same lock space is good. Easy to separate if required.
>
> Explicitly nameable lock spaces would be even better, since if multiple
> applications use them you get strange and unmanageable contention.
I think something like this has been suggested in the past, and was
rejected at that time.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-12-14 00:58:39 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-14 00:50:21 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |