Josh Berkus <> writes:
> Merlin,
>> well, I'm confused now.  Tom said that cleaned up functions might be
>> sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question. 

> You're correct, he did.  Tom?

Well, it's not like we're done with forced initdb's for 8.2, so I don't
particularly see the harm in adding a few more functions.  I would be
against writing something large and complicated at this point, but these
functions are trivial (practically one-liners) and I don't think there's
a lot of debate needed about the API.  The biggest part of the work
needed is to write the documentation --- but we'd have to do that for
Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks docs presumably fall under GPL
along with the code.

So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something cleaner
and suitable for the long run with not very much more effort.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to