On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 17:12, Marko Tiikkaja
> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> I still didn't address
>> the issue with pg_advisory_unlock_all() releasing transaction scoped locks,
>
> I guess you don't want independent locks, right? If an user object
> is locked by session locks, it also blocks backends trying to lock it
> with transaction locks.
>
> If so, I think an ideal behavior is below:
> - The transaction-or-session property is overwritten by the last lock
>  function call. We can promote session locks from/to transaction locks.

No.  The lock manager already supports session-locks.  This patch
should be worried about making sure that LockAcquire() gets called
with the flags the user wants, NOT with redefining the interaction
between transaction locks and session locks.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks at 2011-02-01 12:28:59 from Itagaki Takahiro

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-02-01 14:03:27
	Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
Previous:	From: Magnus Hagander	Date: 2011-02-01 12:30:00
	Subject: Re: setlocale and gettext in Postgres