| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 14:19:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=2QeNa_yjvd9OpV9RoaQrtXNZ+b2c6zhgRwjmn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 December 2010 00:14:22 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it.
> I feel strongly that it needs the same locking space. I pretty frequently have
> the need for multiple clients trying to acquiring a lock in transaction scope
> (i.e. for accessing the cache) and one/few acquiring it in session scope (for
> building the cache).
Not that I'm necessarily against the proposal, but what does this do
that can't already be done by locking a table or a table's row?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-12-14 14:23:51 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Previous Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2010-12-14 14:06:21 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |