On 2010-12-14 2:35 AM +0200, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 01:14 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> Oh, I forgot to mention. The patch doesn't change any existing
>> behaviour; the new behaviour can be invoked only by adding a new boolean
>> argument:
>>
>> SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1, false);
>
> Don't like adding a boolean. Nobody remembers what it is for and we have
> bugs. How about pg_advisory_xact_lock()
That's the other option I was thinking of, but didn't like that too
much. But you're right about the boolean, it is a bit hard to remember
which behaviour is which.
>> The lock space is the same though, but I don't feel strongly about it.
>
> Same lock space is good. Easy to separate if required.
>
> Explicitly nameable lock spaces would be even better, since if multiple
> applications use them you get strange and unmanageable contention.
I think something like this has been suggested in the past, and was
rejected at that time.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja