Re: Re: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?
Date: 2001-06-22 00:10:14
Message-ID: 1985.993168614@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu> writes:
> I think that type of lock would best be kept to the system level.

Why?

I don't have a scenario offhand where it'd be useful, but if we've
discovered it's useful for VACUUM then there may be cases where a lock
with these properties would be useful to users as well. Besides, we
have several lock types that are exposed to users even though we've
found no uses for them at the system level.

> Is it going to timeout? If a connection is dropped by a user, will the
> lock release?

No, and yes, same as any other lock.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2001-06-22 02:14:44 Re: COPY vs. INSERT
Previous Message Thomas Swan 2001-06-21 23:40:16 Re: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?