Re: pg_locks needs a facelift - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: pg_locks needs a facelift
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_locks needs a facelift  (Tom Lane)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:43:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <> writes:
> > I wish you wouldn't since uses it.
> Don't worry, I'll veto any immediate removal of functionality ;-)

Yes, but will core (or worse, that Bruce guy) over-ride your veto? ;P

> The correct way to handle this is to add some better userlock
> functionality and deprecate what's there.  We can remove the crufty
> stuff in a release or three after it's been officially deprecated
> ... but there is no reason to remove it immediately.  It won't conflict
> with a better version, just exist alongside.

Hopefully by then I'll have come up with a reason not to support
pre-8.whenever_userlock_is_improved. :)
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant                
Give your computer some brain candy! Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

pgsql-hackers by date:

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: A proper fix for the conversion-function problem
From: Josh Berkus
Subject: Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement