Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: lock listing

From: nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway)
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lock listing
Date: 2002-07-22 16:02:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 05:15:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm very unthrilled with this approach to faking up a composite type
> >> for pg_show_locks to return.
> > As am I, and I agree that the proper long-term answer is some new
> > infrastructure for adding builtin SRFs. However, I don't think that's
> > a really good reason for rejecting the patch --
> I'm not wanting to reject the patch; I'm wanting to restructure it as
> additions to lmgr.c plus a contrib module that includes the API function
> and perhaps some sample views.  The contrib module's install script
> could avoid these pesky problems because it can just CREATE a dummy
> table or view and then CREATE the function.  Once we have a better
> answer about declaring built-in SRFs, we can migrate the code into the
> core.

Personally, that doesn't strike me as a lot cleaner than just putting
the code into the core in the first place. Since the changes to adapt
the SRF to a new composite type scheme would be trivial (less than
20 lines of changes, probably less), I'd personally vote to include it
in the core, and put up with a little bit of ugliness in initdb until
we get a proper solution.

I've attached a revised patch which incorporates Tom's suggestions, as
well as including a few more code cleanups/fixes, and doesn't remove
the USER_LOCKS code.



Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-07-22 18:34:43
Subject: Re: lock listing
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-07-22 15:18:55
Subject: Re: Demo patch for DROP COLUMN

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group