| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Date: | 2004-03-09 05:47:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20040309.144707.59653448.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
If "NOWAIT" is the choice, I could live with it. If there's no
objection, I will go with "NOWAIT", not "NO WAIT".
--
Tatsuo Ishii
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > LOCK TABLE table NO WAIT is OK for 7.5? If ok, I will make patches
> > against current with some docs changes.
>
> Dept of minor gripes: can we do this without turning "NO" into a
> keyword? Even as a nonreserved word, I think that would be annoying.
> "no" is a common abbreviation for "number" so I think it's likely to
> get used as a column name.
>
> If Oracle spells it "NOWAIT" then I'd be much happier with that...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-09 06:34:24 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-09 05:42:04 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-09 06:34:24 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-09 05:42:04 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |