| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 beta blockers |
| Date: | 2006-09-18 20:57:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4426.1158613071@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> As far as the PR material goes, something like "advisory locks
>>> incorporated into core" would be OK, but don't make it sound like
>>> there was nothing there before ...
> Yes, although if I'm doing this for PR, I need to use language which is
> standard in the industry or I won't be understood. What about
> "high-concurrency pessimistic locking mechanism"?
"Advisory lock" *is* a standard term. The other sounds, well, mighty PR-ish.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-09-18 21:00:01 | Re: minor feature request: Secure defaults during |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-09-18 20:54:01 | Re: Release notes |