Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I don't see the column rename as an
> > > API change issue.
> >
> > How can you possibly claim it's not an API change?
> >
>
> i dunno, i agree with bruce here. we are just changing the output of
> pg_locks a bit reflecting the change in moving contrib to core.
> nobody cares about the literal output of pg_locks for userlocks except
> the old contrib users. compatiblity could be supplied in the pgfoundry
> module for this as well. i say to leave the lock tables alone and
> change to 'advsiory'. it just seems odd the way it is.
Agreed. I just don't imagine many current user applications referencing
userlocks, and I do imagine confusion in the future by users using the
new API which call them "advisory".
I guess it is a compatibility change, but weighing compatibility against
clarity, I am leaning toward clarity. I assume it is this line that
would be changed:
_("user lock [%u,%u,%u,%u]"),
By my reading of that, that string is language-local, so anyone trying
to parse that directly is going to have a larger problem than our
renaming it for 8.2.
--
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 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
