Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

From: Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Date: 2006-12-01 19:09:08
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0612011106130.27353-100000@denzel.in
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So at this point we are facing three options:
> - throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment;
> - postpone 8.2 until we can think of a real fix, which might
> be a major undertaking;
> - ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1 had.
> None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last
> is the least bad.
>
> regards, tom lane

I'd go with that last option; it's important to get this release out now,
I think, as it has a lot of value add, and people get it that things
aren't always perfect. I do, however, feel that the "real fix" is vital,
whenever it can occur. It's attention to detail like this that elevates
this group from good to great.

Richard

--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com, http://ScienceTools.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-12-01 19:16:27 Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-01 19:02:13 Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-12-01 19:16:27 Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-01 19:05:07 Re: small pg_dump RFE: new --no-prompt (password) option