Re: [WIP] The shared dependency patch
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [WIP] The shared dependency patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20041217174818.GA4124@dcc.uchile.cl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [WIP] The shared dependency patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [WIP] The shared dependency patch
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:46:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > IIRC, Rod Taylor did some work on supporting locks for non-table objects > back around the beginning of the year. We rejected the patch for various > reasons but you might be able to adopt some of it. At the beggining of the past year, you mean? I found this: From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> To: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org> Date: 15 Feb 2003 19:50:46 -0500 Subject: Object (Domain) locking http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-02/msg00093.php In the archives, I see Bruce's message telling that it was applied, then it was backed out for untold reasons, and nothing else happenned. Does anyone remember why the patch was backed out? A pointer to the archives would be most helpful. > Or you could do something like the pg_xactlock hack. Basically you need > a convention that identifies a LOCKTAG value as locking a particular > user, such that it can't exactly equal any lock on a regular relation. Hmm. The problem is that I need to lock users, groups and tablespaces, so a single value won't do. I could create three special values (pg_userlock, pg_grouplock, pg_tblspclock?), but at that point it seems something more general is needed, like maybe Rod's patch. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan" (A. Christie)
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: