On 16 May 2014 13:21, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 05/16/2014 04:46 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > > I'll follow up with the patch and a git tree when it's ready, hopefully > > tonight. > > Here's a rebased version of Simon's original patch that runs on current > master. > > I still need to merge the isolation tests for it merged and sorted out, > and after re-reading it I'd like to change "waitMode" into an enum, not > just some #defines . > > Hope it's useful for comparison and ideas.
Thank you! At first glance they're sort of similar which is reassuring. I'm especially interested in the buffer release semantics which I was confused about and will look into that (to resolve the TODO notes in my patch). I noticed that in applyLockingClause, Simon has "rc->waitMode |= waitMode". Is that right? The values are 0, 1, and 2, but if you had both NOWAIT and SKIP LOCKED somewhere in your query you could up with rc->waitMode == 3 unless I'm mistaken. In my patch I have code that would give precedence to NOWAIT, though looking at it again it could be simpler. (One reviewer pointed out, that it should really be a single unified enum. In fact I have been a bit unsure about what scope such an enumeration should have in the application -- could it even be used in parser code? I tried to follow existing examples which is why I used #define macros in gram.y). >From a bikeshed colour point of view: * I used SKIP LOCKED DATA like DB2, and Simon used SKIP LOCKED like Oracle, and I guess shorter is sweeter * I used the term wait_policy and an enum, Simon used waitMode and an int * I had noWait and skipLocked travelling separately in some places, Simon had a single parameter, which is much better Best regards, Thomas Munro
