Re: LOCK for non-tables

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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