| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 14:59:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4D078637.90000@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/2010 09:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure<mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Not that I'm necessarily against the proposal, but what does this do
>> that can't already be done by locking a table or a table's row?
> I agree with Andres' point about this: sometimes it'd be more convenient
> for an advisory lock to be released automatically at transaction end.
> If you have a mix of clients that want that behavior with others that
> want a persistent hold on the same locks, you can't do it with regular
> locks.
>
Right. And that's why they need to be in the same lockspace.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-14 14:59:33 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-14 14:51:48 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |