| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: change in LOCK behavior |
| Date: | 2012-10-11 01:34:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20121011013428.GH11890@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:29:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:43:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think we have to revert and go back to the drawing board on this.
>
> > Is reverting going to adversely affect users who are already using the
> > 9.2 behavior?
>
> In what way would somebody be relying on the 9.2 behavior?
I don't know. I am just asking if an application could be relying on
the 9.2 behavior.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-11 01:39:21 | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-11 01:29:16 | Re: change in LOCK behavior |