From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [bugfix] DISCARD ALL does not release advisory locks |
Date: | 2008-11-26 20:42:47 |
Message-ID: | 24672.1227732167@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I see your point but there's a pretty high standard for changing
>> existing behavior in bugfix releases.
> 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.
The fact that it is new in 8.3 definitely weakens the backwards-
compatibility argument. I tend to agree that it's unlikely anyone is
really depending on this behavior yet. You could make a case that if we
don't backpatch now, we'd actually be *more* likely to create a problem,
because the longer that 8.3 is out with the current behavior, the more
likely that someone might actually come to depend on it.
On balance I'm for back-patching, but wanted to see what others thought.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-26 20:45:51 | Re: [bugfix] DISCARD ALL does not release advisory locks |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-11-26 20:35:55 | Re: What's going on with pgfoundry? |