| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 19:02:08 |
| Message-ID: | 9474.1158951728@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-22 19:06:00 | Re: advisory locks and permissions |
| Previous Message | mark | 2006-09-22 19:00:30 | Re: Fwd: Is the fsync() fake on FreeBSD6.1? |