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
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 |