On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:22:10PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 31 October 2012 19:35, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > +1. I had not considered this angle during previous reviews, but I agree > > > with > > > Andres's position. Since this patch does not strengthen the strongest > > > tuple > > > lock relative to its PostgreSQL 9.2 counterpart, that lock type should > > > continue to use the syntax "FOR UPDATE". It will come to mean "the lock > > > type > > > sufficient for all possible UPDATEs of the row". > > Yeah, I agree with this too. > > > So we have syntax > > > > FOR NON KEY UPDATE > > FOR KEY UPDATE > > > > KEY is the default, so FOR UPDATE is a synonym of FOR KEY UPDATE > > Not really sure about the proposed syntax, but yes clearly we need some > other syntax to mean "FOR NON KEY UPDATE". I would rather keep FOR > UPDATE to mean what I currently call FOR KEY UPDATE. More proposals for > the other (weaker) lock level welcome (but if you love FOR NON KEY > UPDATE, please chime in too)
Agree on having "FOR UPDATE" without any "FOR KEY UPDATE" synonym. For the weaker lock, I mildly preferred the proposal of "FOR NO KEY UPDATE". NON KEY captures the idea better in English, but NO is close enough and already part of the SQL lexicon. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
