Tom Lane writes:
> Awhile ago I said that I wanted to create a new flavor of table-level
> lock for concurrent VACUUM to get on a table.
> I'm having a hard time coming up with a name, though. I originally
> called it "VacuumLock" but naming it after its primary use seems bogus.
Not that a name like "share row exclusive" is any less bogus. ;-)
I've been staring at the lock names for an hour now and the best name I've
come up with is SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, as in "share update, otherwise
exclusive" (the implication being that update would allow select as well),
or some permutation thereof.
Any other constructs that follow the existing patterns lead to
significantly less desirable names like
EXCLUSIVE ROW EXCLUSIVE == like ROW EXCLUSIVE, but self-exclusive, or
ROW EXCLUSIVE SHARE == like SHARE, but allows ROW EXCLUSIVE
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
