Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=2QeNa_yjvd9OpV9RoaQrtXNZ+b2c6zhgRwjmn@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks
Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On Tuesday 14 December 2010 00:14:22 Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it. > I feel strongly that it needs the same locking space. I pretty frequently have > the need for multiple clients trying to acquiring a lock in transaction scope > (i.e. for accessing the cache) and one/few acquiring it in session scope (for > building the cache). Not that I'm necessarily against the proposal, but what does this do that can't already be done by locking a table or a table's row? merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: