* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > I don't think we're designing a feature that's supposed to be used under > heavy concurrency here. If you have users/tools doing conflicting > actions as superusers you need to solve that by social means, not by > technical ones.
If this actually gets used by puppet or another CMS, the chances of the
'social means' being successful drop drastically.
I agree that it doesn't need to work under heavy concurrency, but it
should do something sensible if it happens- perhaps even just throwing
an error if it can't acquire the lock immediately, warning the user that
some other process is trying to modify the config concurrently.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
