| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, fgp(at)phlo(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LOCK for non-tables |
| Date: | 2011-01-14 20:05:52 |
| Message-ID: | 10278.1295035552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 14:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In any case I'd rather break apps using "LOCK foo NOWAIT" than break
>> every application using any form of LOCK at all, which is what I think
>> your proposal will amount to in practice.
> Can I suggest that we don't break anything at all?
> pg_lock_object(objectname, objecttype, mode);
> or
> pg_lock_sequence(name, mode);
> is all we need...
No, that will not work at all. LOCK has to be a utility command.
A function called by SELECT isn't a substitute, because SELECT
will acquire a transaction snapshot before executing the function,
and that breaks many use cases for locks.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-01-14 20:11:29 | Re: Database file copy |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-01-14 19:59:00 | Re: SQL/MED - FDW API |