From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LOCK for non-tables |
Date: | 2011-01-15 21:17:34 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimrSzjOqs9d+gu_34LVhmRUQaMh3zNPexcxNnBe@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I suggest also marking each item with a release in which we intend to do
>>> it, so we don't have to try to remember whether a reasonable amount of
>>> time has elapsed.
>
>> You mean like the way the 9.1devel documentation says that
>> contrib/xml2 will be removed in 8.4? I wonder if we'll do anything
>> either about deprecating the module or about changing the
>> documentation before 8.4 is EOL.
>
> Well, that one is a special case, because we knew perfectly well that we
> hadn't replaced all the functionality of xml2 (and we still haven't).
> I think the "official" deprecation list should only contain items for
> which there's no blocking issue other than wanting to give users time to
> migrate to an existing alternate solution.
Fair enough.
Do we wish to officially document LOCK without TABLE as a good idea to
start avoiding, in case we decide to do something about that in the
future?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2011-01-15 21:20:27 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-15 21:14:19 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |