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

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: pg_locks needs a facelift
Msg-id 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3415C2716@Herge.rcsinc.local
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_locks needs a facelift  (Tom Lane)
Responses Re: pg_locks needs a facelift  (Alvaro Herrera)
Re: pg_locks needs a facelift  (Tom Lane)
List pgsql-hackers
> > well, the old ones are GPL.  I've made a few attempts to contact the
> > original author...he's MIA.  Since 95% of the implementation is in
> > backend, it seems odd to have a GPL interface.
> I agree.  Wasn't it you that was proposing to rewrite the module from
> scratch to eliminate the GPL restriction?
>             regards, tom lane

Yep.  Actually, the biggest part of this was figuring out what to do
about the pg_locks view.  Since that's basically decided, all that
remains is to decide what if anything to do about the
max_locks_per_transaction GUC variable.  User locks at the very least
are extra-transactional so this could perhaps be renamed.  This could
possibly hinge on how Alvaro's 'spill to disk' scenario plays out.

FWIW, I'm a huge fan of the current behavior which is to drop
transactions when running out of lock-space.  In any event, I'll rewrite
the interface and the documentation for user-locking with minimal
changes except to expose more of the locktag structure and remove
references to the deprecated and conceptually confusing oid.


pgsql-hackers by date:

From: "PeterS"
Subject: PostgreSQL Guru needed: $70K - $80K year!!
From: Ron Mayer
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement