Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Still, it's an interesting alternative. Comments anyone?
>
> > SelfExclusiveLock is clear and can't be confused with other lock types.
>
> It could possibly be made a little less dangerous if "SelfExclusiveLock"
> were defined to conflict with itself and AccessExclusiveLock (and
> nothing else). That would at least mean that holding SelfExclusiveLock
> would guarantee the table not go away under you; so there might be
> scenarios where holding just that lock would make sense.
>
> Still, I'm not sure that this lock type is as flexible as it seems at
> first glance.
I don't think "SelfExclusiveLock" is an excellent lock either.
However it seems to point out the reason why we couldn't
place(name) "VacuumLock" properly in our locking system.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
