Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...

From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...
Date: 2004-03-09 06:41:44
Message-ID: 404D6728.9040203@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Oracle uses "NOWAIT" so we should go for that one.

Regards,

Hans

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2004-03-09 06:45:04 Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-09 06:36:27 Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2004-03-09 06:45:04 Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-09 06:36:27 Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...