Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm disinclined to change that, because it would probably break existing > >> client-side code for little gain. > > > I think clarity suggests we should make the heading match the feature, > > i.e call it "advisory" rather than "userlock". We changed the API, I > > don't see why keeping the heading makes sense. > > (a) we changed a *different* part of the API; I don't see how that > licenses us to whack around anything that's marginally related. > > (b) we put up that pgfoundry module so that there would be a backward > compatible solution. Won't be very backward compatible if the locks > look different in pg_locks.
But is anyone going to know what userlocks is in 1-2 years? We have few people using /contrib/userlocks, but in the future, I bet we have a lot more people using advisory locks, and being confused. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
