Re: LOCK for non-tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, fgp(at)phlo(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LOCK for non-tables
Date: 2011-01-14 20:46:15
Message-ID: 10862.1295037975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, that will not work at all. LOCK has to be a utility command.

> But it doesn't break the use case for locking sequences, ISTM.

You haven't stated what you think that use case is, but in any case
I'm sure someone can come up with another one where not freezing
the transaction snapshot *is* a consideration.

> Anyway, any suggestion that randomly breaks user applications is not
> good. If there is a good reason to do that, OK, but I don't see that
> here.

The good reason is adding functionality. Or is it your position that
the functionality under discussion is not worth any syntax breakage,
no matter how narrowly circumscribed? If we take that position then
we can drop this whole thread, because nothing's going to happen.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2011-01-14 20:50:28 pov 1.0 is released, testers with huge schemas needed
Previous Message Marti Raudsepp 2011-01-14 20:45:06 Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements.