Re: LOCK for non-tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: LOCK for non-tables
Date
Msg-id 1295054190.18426.10.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LOCK for non-tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 17:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > I'm not keen to explain to people how we broke their applications
> just
> > because we wanted to add new functionality AND avoid one
> shift/reduce
> > conflict in our SQL grammar. Avoiding changes to user code isn't
> third
> > on that list of three things I want, its first.
> 
> I grow weary of discussions in which somebody argues that
> consideration X always outweighs every other consideration.  We're
> doing engineering here, not theology, and there are always tradeoffs
> to be made.  In this case it's my opinion that a small syntax
> adjustment is the best tradeoff.

I didn't say avoiding changes to user code *always* outweighs other
considerations, it just does so in this case, for me. I too am doing
engineering, not theology; our opinions differ in one area, that's all.

-- Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Named restore points
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: limiting hint bit I/O