On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 08:07:52PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Why does this patch arbitrarily remove the #ifdefs and documentation
> > > for USER_LOCKS? That seems quite unrelated to the stated purpose.
> >
> > I probably should have mentioned that -- it looked like dead code,
> > and the behavior that it referred to (a loadable module called
> > user-locks.c, which doesn't make sense to begin with) doesn't
> > appear to exist anymore.
>
> Is it contrib/userlock/?
Ah, thanks for pointing that out (I guess I was searching within src/).
I suppose it can stay, although I'm not sure that it's very useful.
Legal Question: the #ifdef USER_LOCKS code is only useful in conjunction
with the contrib/userlock module, which is GPL'd. Would that mean that
part of the backend "depends" upon GPL'd software in order to operate?
I have no idea what the answer is, just curious...
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
