Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobRwWPC1nLxz13wgDO4r=o5JMPH9hNubfd_rGhVVChicA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > AFAICS you'd either use transactional or session level, but to use > both seems bizarre. I'm a bit confused by all this, because we use both transaction and session level locks internally - on the same lock tags - so I don't know why we think it wouldn't be useful for user code to do the same. In fact I'm a bit confused by the original complaint for the same reason - if LockRelationOid and LockRelationIdForSession can coexist, why doesn't the same thing work for advisory locks? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: