| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 02:21:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4D06D4B5.1000305@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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);
>
> The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it.
I could use this, and I think a lot more people would use advisory locks
with it. Put it in the next CF and remind me to test it.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-14 02:23:05 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-14 02:16:43 | Re: hstores in pl/python |