| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM? |
| Date: | 2001-06-25 10:17:10 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368345@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Still, it's an interesting alternative. Comments anyone?
>
> SelfExclusiveLock is clear and can't be confused with other
> lock types.
How about giving it a label ? SelfExclusive would somehow suggest,
that you can have more than one self exclusive lock.
Like:
lock table atab in self exclusive mode for "vacuum";
does not conflict with:
lock table atab in self exclusive mode for "account balancing";
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-06-25 12:52:02 | Re: RE: [BUGS] Update is not atomic |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-06-25 10:12:42 | AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions |