From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM? |
Date: | 2001-06-23 14:39:39 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJIEBMEMAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Inoue
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane
> >
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > > I've been staring at the lock names for an hour now and the
> > best name I've
> > > come up with is SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, as in "share update, otherwise
> > > exclusive" (the implication being that update would allow
> > select as well),
> > > or some permutation thereof.
> >
> > Okay with me, unless someone else comes up with a better idea...
> >
>
> I have no better idea but I hope to leave VacuumLock as an alias
> because I can't remember others.
>
Isn't it a better idea to have a separate 'SELF EXCLUSIVE' lock
which conflicts with only itself ?
regards,
HIroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-23 15:48:20 | Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-23 13:49:48 | Re: [PATCH] by request: base64 for bytea |