From: | Pablo Funes <pablo(at)cs(dot)brandeis(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] please? |
Date: | 1999-05-31 23:40:53 |
Message-ID: | 199905312340.TAA03630@mancha.cs.brandeis.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Sharing file systems. Good point. You could have a table you use to
> > > lock. Lock the table, view the value, possibly modify, and unlock.
> > > This does not handle the case where someone died and did not remove
> > > their entry from the lock table.
> >
> > You can always write the modification time to the table as well and if
> > it's "too old", then try to override it.
> >
>
> Assuming you can set a reasonable "too old" time.
>
There may be many partial workarounds, depending on the
application, but there seems to be no robust way to have
a failed lock right now. Perhaps in a future version will
PQrequestCancel be able to terminate a waiting-for-lock
state?
Pablo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 1999-05-31 23:51:06 | Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-31 23:28:22 | Re: [HACKERS] please? |