Re: advisory locks and permissions

From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: advisory locks and permissions
Date: 2006-09-22 16:56:37
Message-ID: b42b73150609220956v31e56e3ei5b3038fa51bd783b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/22/06, Jim C. Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> This is why I suggested we set aside some range of numbers that should
> not be used. Doing so would allow adding a better-managed
> numbering/naming scheme in the future.

the whole point about advisory locks is that the provided lock space
is unmanaged. for example, in the ISAM system I wrote which hooked
into the acucobol virtual file system interface, I used a global
sequence for row level pessimistic locking but reserved the 48th bit
for table level locks. This system was extremely effective. on the
current system I'm working on I use them to lock sequence oid's plus a
high bit indicator for what i am doing. in short, advisory locks are
application-defined in concept.

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2006-09-22 16:58:04 Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 beta
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-22 16:56:35 Re: 8.3 Development Cycle