Re: userlock changes for 8.1/8.2
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: userlock changes for 8.1/8.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A75E0@Herge.rcsinc.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | userlock changes for 8.1/8.2 ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: userlock changes for 8.1/8.2
Re: userlock changes for 8.1/8.2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > [ yawn... ] Create a table with a "name" column, put some rows in it, > > lock the rows. > > What would guarantee that the OIDs of those rows don't conflict with > some other OIDs in the system? > > BTW, this becomes a real issue if you're trying to write code that is > meant to be incorporated into other PostgreSQL applications, which might > also be using user_lock. Having a text-based means to identify locks > greatly reduces the odds of conflicting with a userlock being used by an > existing application. I prefer sequences to OIDs in virtually every aspect, including this one. However, it would be nice to have system generated unique tuple identifier. There isn't one currently that would fit in the userlock restriction of 48 bits. Any identifier derived from system columns probably would take 96-128 bits (for example ctid/tableoid combo). IMO, the current behavior is ok, meaning I don't necessarily feel that there should be a candidate system key to use for them. However I would discourage the use of OIDs with them. Merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: