| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, fgp(at)phlo(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LOCK for non-tables |
| Date: | 2011-01-14 20:46:15 |
| Message-ID: | 10862.1295037975@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, that will not work at all. LOCK has to be a utility command.
> But it doesn't break the use case for locking sequences, ISTM.
You haven't stated what you think that use case is, but in any case
I'm sure someone can come up with another one where not freezing
the transaction snapshot *is* a consideration.
> Anyway, any suggestion that randomly breaks user applications is not
> good. If there is a good reason to do that, OK, but I don't see that
> here.
The good reason is adding functionality. Or is it your position that
the functionality under discussion is not worth any syntax breakage,
no matter how narrowly circumscribed? If we take that position then
we can drop this whole thread, because nothing's going to happen.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2011-01-14 20:50:28 | pov 1.0 is released, testers with huge schemas needed |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2011-01-14 20:45:06 | Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements. |