Re: LOCK for non-tables

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:27:03
Message-ID: 1295040423.23290.118.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think the realistic options are (1) change the syntax
> non-backward-compatibly or (2) don't add any functionality here.

(3) think of another way.

I'm not keen to explain to people how we broke their applications just
because we wanted to add new functionality AND avoid one shift/reduce
conflict in our SQL grammar. Avoiding changes to user code isn't third
on that list of three things I want, its first.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-14 21:37:02 Re: limiting hint bit I/O
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-14 21:09:35 Re: LOCK for non-tables