Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-08-25 14:33:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (IOW, yeah, certainly third-party code could create a new *instance* of
>> the ResourceOwner data structure, but they would not have any knowledge of
>> what's inside unless they had hacked the core code.)
> What I was thinking is that somebody created a new resowner, did
> something, and then called LockReleaseCurrentOwner() (because no locks
> are needed anymore), or LockReassignCurrentOwner() (say you want to
> abort a subtransaction, but do *not* want the locks to be released).
> Anyway, I slightly lean towards having wrappers, you strongly against,
> so that makes it an easy call.
Well, I'm not "strongly" against them, just trying to understand whether
there's a plausible argument that someone is calling these functions from
extensions. I'm not hearing one ... for one thing, I don't believe there
are any extensions playing games with transaction/lock semantics. (My
Salesforce colleagues have done some of that, and no you can't get far
without changing the core code.)
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
