Re: 8.2 beta blockers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 8.2 beta blockers
Date
Msg-id 1521.1158602951@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.2 beta blockers  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jimn@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: 8.2 beta blockers  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jimn@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I believe recommending that you not use locks with the first
> int4 above 16k (and whatever the equivalent would be for int8) would be
> a good way to do that, as it would allow for segregating locks by schema
> OID.

That seems pretty content-free to me, if not counter-productive.  To the
extent that we can foresee the usage for the two-int4s lock style, the
first one is likely to be an OID (eg, a user table's OID) which the user
is not going to be able to control the range of.  Also, if you are
locking on the basis of object OIDs, there's no need to worry which
schema they are in.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: minor feature request: Secure defaults during
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: An Idea for OID conflicts