Re: LOCK for non-tables

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I grow weary of discussions in which somebody argues that consideration
> X always outweighs every other consideration.  We're doing engineering
> here, not theology, and there are always tradeoffs to be made.  In this
> case it's my opinion that a small syntax adjustment is the best
> tradeoff.

Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small
syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now.
Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just a
comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was
inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not
sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company