Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> You are saying to these users, "You can write data to these tables but I
> can't guarantee you that anything you do will actually be written,
> consistent, and non-corrupted." And as I said before, this doesn't prevent
 No. How often you LOCKing table? If you work in transaction block and DB 
design is good (or very simple), you not need very often the LOCK. 
I'm working with my large DB every day and without locking and my DB is
consistent (example for me is more iteresting full-time full-access to table
than any a transaclion abort.) The LOCK command is not primary tool for
data integrity (primary it is transaction,primary/foreign 
keys/check-triggers..etc). 

Set/Not-Set NOLOCK is admin choice, if you not want it you not must set 
it... OK?
I good understand you, but life and a SQL DB is not black or white, the  
world is coloured :-)
IMHO will better LOCK privilage add to "local" table acl and differentiate
between write-access and lock-access (a good item to TODO). This acl option
will better than my NOLOCK.IMHO will better "recast" this discussion to discussion about new 
acl/account features. Agree?
I a little speculated about it and IHO is real possible make CRATE ROLE,
CREATE PROFILE and global pg_acl table and extend GRANT (function,alter..).
See example Oracle8 documentation (example on: http://mravenec.jcu.cz/oracle),
it is more readable than SQL standards :-)
                        Karel