Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER
Date: 2008-06-06 16:39:58
Message-ID: 4627.1212770398@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> New Lock Mode Proposed: LW_EX_OWNER (input on better name will be
> appreciated).

This seems rather crazy, and you haven't actually given a single
convincing use-case. Shouldn't you be trying to break down a lock
into multiple locks instead of inventing new lock semantics that
nobody really understands?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2008-06-06 16:44:42 Re: Overhauling GUCS
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2008-06-06 16:25:06 Re: Overhauling GUCS