On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:56:37PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 9/22/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >This is why I suggested we set aside some range of numbers that should > >not be used. Doing so would allow adding a better-managed > >numbering/naming scheme in the future. > > the whole point about advisory locks is that the provided lock space > is unmanaged. for example, in the ISAM system I wrote which hooked > into the acucobol virtual file system interface, I used a global > sequence for row level pessimistic locking but reserved the 48th bit > for table level locks. This system was extremely effective. on the > current system I'm working on I use them to lock sequence oid's plus a > high bit indicator for what i am doing. in short, advisory locks are > application-defined in concept.
Yes, but if you get two pieces of code written by different people using them in the same database, you can get hosed. As PostgreSQL becomes more popular and more people start developing software for it, this is more likely to occur. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
