On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > AFAICS you'd either use transactional or session level, but to use > both seems bizarre.
I'm a bit confused by all this, because we use both transaction and session level locks internally - on the same lock tags - so I don't know why we think it wouldn't be useful for user code to do the same. In fact I'm a bit confused by the original complaint for the same reason - if LockRelationOid and LockRelationIdForSession can coexist, why doesn't the same thing work for advisory locks? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
