RE: (LOCK TABLE options) “ONLY” and “NOWAIT” are not yet implemented

From: <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)nttdata(dot)com>
To: <bt21tanigaway(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: (LOCK TABLE options) “ONLY” and “NOWAIT” are not yet implemented
Date: 2021-09-30 03:18:29
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB2896005A7BA10FEDD897B4E3C4AA9@TYAPR01MB2896.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>Thank you for your feedback.
>I might have added whitespace when I was checking the patch file.
>I attach a new patch to this mail.
Thank you for the update!

> else if (Matches("LOCK", MatchAny, "IN", "ACCESS|ROW") ||
>- Matches("LOCK", "TABLE", MatchAny, "IN", "ACCESS|ROW"))
>+ Matches("LOCK", "TABLE", MatchAny, "IN", "ACCESS|ROW") ||
>+ Matches("LOCK", "ONLY", MatchAny, "IN", "ACCESS|ROW") ||
>+ Matches("LOCK", "TABLE", "ONLY", MatchAny, "IN", "ACCESS|ROW"))
I think this code is redundant, so I change following.
---
else if (HeadMatches("LOCK") && TailMatches("IN", "ACCESS|ROW"))
---
I created the patch, and attached it. Do you think?

>> 2. The command "LOCK TABLE a, b;" can be executed, but tab-completion
>> doesn't work properly. Is it OK?
>It's OK for now.
>But it should be able to handle a case of multiple tables in the future.
OK. I agreed.

Regards,
Shinya Kato

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix_tab_completion_of_lock.patch application/octet-stream 3.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-09-30 03:49:36 Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-09-30 03:12:26 Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress