Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers)

"Merlin Moncure"  writes:
> two questions: do we need both a shared and unshared variant of
> advisory_unlock (im guessing no)?

Yes, because it's possible to hold both shared and exclusive lock
concurrently, so you have to say which you're releasing.

> also, are we exposing the mode in
> the int4/int4 signature or are all advisory locks assumed to be
> exclusive (if yes, which int4 is the lockmode).

Huh?
		regards, tom lane