Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers)
Date
Msg-id 6910.1158682538@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers)  ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> two questions: do we need both a shared and unshared variant of
> advisory_unlock (im guessing no)?

Yes, because it's possible to hold both shared and exclusive lock
concurrently, so you have to say which you're releasing.

> also, are we exposing the mode in
> the int4/int4 signature or are all advisory locks assumed to be
> exclusive (if yes, which int4 is the lockmode).

Huh?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Incrementally Updated Backup
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers)