| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 17:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobRwWPC1nLxz13wgDO4r=o5JMPH9hNubfd_rGhVVChicA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> AFAICS you'd either use transactional or session level, but to use
> both seems bizarre.
I'm a bit confused by all this, because we use both transaction and
session level locks internally - on the same lock tags - so I don't
know why we think it wouldn't be useful for user code to do the same.
In fact I'm a bit confused by the original complaint for the same
reason - if LockRelationOid and LockRelationIdForSession can coexist,
why doesn't the same thing work for advisory locks?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-03 17:27:44 | Re: CLOG extension |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-03 17:22:08 | Re: Future In-Core Replication |