On 2010-12-14 4:19 PM +0200, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Andres Freund<and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
On Tuesday 14 December 2010 00:14:22 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it.
I feel strongly that it needs the same locking space. I pretty frequently have
the need for multiple clients trying to acquiring a lock in transaction scope
(i.e. for accessing the cache) and one/few acquiring it in session scope (for
building the cache).
Not that I'm necessarily against the proposal, but what does this do
that can't already be done by locking a table or a table's row?
Try without throwing an error.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
