| From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bugfix] DISCARD ALL does not release advisory locks |
| Date: | 2008-11-26 19:27:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10811261127s75430340qf9ff0d896b9eed1a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> DISCARD ALL was specifically added in 8.3 for the purpose of connection
> poolers to be a "big hammer" that exactly emulates a new session. I'm somewhat
> skeptical that there are any applications using it directly at all, and doubly
> so that they would be using it and expecting advisory locks to persist.
>
> I think the second and third points are pretty convincing.
I kinda agree with you. The only problem IMHO is that we described in
the doc exactly what it does and not simply as the big hammer it was
supposed to be. See
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/sql-discard.html .
You can't guarantee that nobody checked the doc to see if it discards
advisory locks even if it's highly unlikely.
That said, I'm more for the backpatching too.
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Decibel! | 2008-11-26 19:32:53 | Re: Column reordering in pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-11-26 19:25:56 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |