| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: advisory locks and permissions |
| Date: | 2006-09-22 19:43:53 |
| Message-ID: | 10556.1158954233@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I don't see the column rename as an
> API change issue.
How can you possibly claim it's not an API change?
If you're insistent on this, my recommendation would be to add a new
LOCKTAG value for advisory locks instead of re-using LOCKTAG_USERLOCK.
This would take a little bit more code space but it would preserve the
same pg_locks display for people using the old contrib code, while we
could use "advisory" for locks created by the new code. (Which I still
maintain is a pretty bad way of describing the locks themselves, but
obviously I'm failing to get through to you on that.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-09-22 19:58:18 | Re: 8.3 Development Cycle |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-09-22 19:33:49 | Re: advisory locks and permissions |