| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 16:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | 26583.1336062341@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That gets rid of the when-to-release kluges, but instead we have
>> to think of a way for two different lockmethods to share the same
>> lock keyspace. If we don't split it then we definitely need to figure
>> out someplace else to keep the transactionality flag.
> Is that even an issue? Do we really want an overlapping lock space?
> AFAICS you'd either use transactional or session level, but to use
> both seems bizarre.
I dunno. That's the existing user-visible semantics, and I wasn't
proposing that we revisit the behavior. It's a bit late for such
a proposal given this already shipped in 9.1.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 16:30:01 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-03 16:21:17 | Re: remove dead ports? |