| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_locks needs a facelift |
| Date: | 2005-05-02 17:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3415C270C@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > A properly implemented user lock system would likely
> > maintain a global sequence shared by all lockable objects, tuple or
> > otherwise.
>
> That'd just be equivalent to require that user tables are created WITH
> OIDS, only the counter wouldn't be shared with system tables ... how
is
> that any better?
Well, oid is 32 bit and not guaranteed to be unique...therefore useless.
However by properly defined, I meant by the application. The server is
agnostic about user locks, a.k.a. 'application defined locks'.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Held | 2005-05-02 17:54:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-02 17:47:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |