From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
Date: | 2006-09-06 03:14:23 |
Message-ID: | 20060906031423.GA2323@penne.toroid.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>
> The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation ---
> but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks
> docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code.
I'll write the documentation, either for the code as it is, or for any
replacement we decide to use.
I didn't submit documentation (or a Makefile, uninstall_otherlock.sql,
etc.) only because I didn't know if anything was going to be done with
otherlock now. I just wanted to mention the existence of the code.
> So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
> bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something
> cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more
> effort.
Fine with me. Two questions:
- Where would the code live, if it were in core?
- Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?
-- ams
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-06 03:24:16 | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-06 03:09:10 | Re: Win32 hard crash problem |