On 2010-12-14 4:23 AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
>> On 2010-12-14 1:08 AM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
>>> In my opinion changing current behavior is not a good idea. I know some
>>> software that relies on current behavior and this would break it. Maybe add
>>> that as an option, or add another type of advisory lock?
>
>> Oh, I forgot to mention. The patch doesn't change any existing
>> behaviour; the new behaviour can be invoked only by adding a new boolean
>> argument:
>
> Uh, I don't think so. It sure looks like you have changed the user
> lockmethod to be transactional, ie, auto-release on commit/abort.
I was under the impression that passing sessionLock=true to
LockAcquire(), combined with allLocks=false to LockReleaseAll() would be
enough to prevent that from happening. My tests seem to agree with this.
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
