| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 18:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | 200609221858.k8MIwia11643@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > advisory locks still show up as 'userlock' in the pg_locks view. does
> > this matter?
>
> I'm disinclined to change that, because it would probably break existing
> client-side code for little gain.
I think clarity suggests we should make the heading match the feature,
i.e call it "advisory" rather than "userlock". We changed the API, I
don't see why keeping the heading makes sense.
I think we should leave it unprotected unless we find out that there are
unique security problems with advisory locks.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-22 19:00:13 | Re: Release Notes: Major Changes in 8.2 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-09-22 18:55:15 | Re: silent install: silent error (even using the manual) |