Re: [HACKERS] please?
От | Pablo Funes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] please? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199905312340.TAA03630@mancha.cs.brandeis.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] please? (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] please?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Sharing file systems. Good point. You could have a table you use to > > > lock. Lock the table, view the value, possibly modify, and unlock. > > > This does not handle the case where someone died and did not remove > > > their entry from the lock table. > > > > You can always write the modification time to the table as well and if > > it's "too old", then try to override it. > > > > Assuming you can set a reasonable "too old" time. > There may be many partial workarounds, depending on the application, but there seems to be no robust way to have a failed lock right now. Perhaps in a future version will PQrequestCancel be able to terminate a waiting-for-lock state? Pablo
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: