Re: LOCK for non-tables

On Jan 15, 2011 12:30 PM, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 12:19 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> > On Jan15, 2011, at 02:03 , Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > >> Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small
> > >> syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now.
> > >> Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just
a
> > >> comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was
> > >> inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not
> > >> sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it.
> > >
> > > Agreed. Once there's some pressing need for it, it'll be easier to
make
> > > the case that some amount of incompatibility is acceptable.
> >
> > Assuming that day will come eventually, should we deprecate the LOCK
<table>
> > shortcut now to ease the transition later? If people want that, I could
go
> > through the docs and add some appropriate warnings.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
>
> I think we should have a section in the release notes on Deprecated
> Features, noting that certain things will be removed later and should be
> changed now and not relied upon in the future. A pending
> incompatibilities list.

+1. This would be very useful. Its hard enough for us "on the inside" to
keep track of things that we deprecated...

> I would urge people to come up with a much wider list of "things we
> don't like" so we can more easily avoid discussions like this in the
> future. Forward planning helps make change easier.

There is a section on the TODO for that already, i think. Seems reasonable
since this is more for developers than users.

/Magnus