| From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
| Date: | 2006-09-05 18:26:02 |
| Message-ID: | slrnefrg9q.2ea3.andrew+nonews@atlantis.supernews.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2006-09-05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago.
>
> Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do
> anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation.
>
> However, as I said, I'd really rather choose a new API altogether.
What about existing users?
> The main thing that seems to be lacking is a way to wait for a lock,
Is this a feature that people actually want or need?
Certainly exposing the lockmode as a magic number isn't ideal.
> And then there's the question of what to expose in the way of lock
> identifier options. What we've got now is "two int4's or an OID"
> which seems a bit random, not to mention that the key space overlaps
> in an undocumented fashion.
It is documented in the original README.user_locks.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-09-05 18:27:21 | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-05 18:06:23 | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |