Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that a saner implementation would involve
>> splitting the userlock lockmethod into two, one transactional and one
>> not.
> hm, would that be exposed through the pg_locks view? some users might
> be running queries like "select * from pg_locks where
> locktype='advisory' and ..."
I don't think we can or should change what pg_locks reports. So they'd
have to look like just one lockmethod at that level.
I'm not actually sure that a split is a practical idea anyway, given
that assorted places use a LockMethod as an identifier for a class of
locks; unless all of those happen to want to distinguish transactional
and session-level userlocks, it'd be problematic. I plan to look also
at the idea of removing the "transactional" field and seeing what that
breaks...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
