Re: lock listing

From: nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway)
To: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lock listing
Date: 2002-07-31 19:23:32
Message-ID: 20020731192332.GA27143@klamath.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:15:56PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 14:47, Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:34:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, I think that would be the way to go, or look at the stat functions
> > > that return tuple sets and use those. That may be a cleaner solution.

[...]

> Lastly, it'll show up in \dS if it's a sudo table. The function is
> buried in thousands of \df results.

I'm confused: I thought that Bruce was suggesting that I change the
lock status functions to be similar to the stats functions (i.e. one
function for every piece of data and a view that pulls them all
together).

There's no problem with wrapping a view over the table function -- but
IMHO using 5 different functions when one would suffice is just ugly.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-07-31 19:35:07 Re: lock listing
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-07-31 19:15:56 Re: lock listing