Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun@gmail.com>
Date: 2010-12-14T15:06:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: >> Not that I'm necessarily against the proposal, but what does this do >> that can't already be done by locking a table or a table's row? > > I agree with Andres' point about this: sometimes it'd be more convenient > for an advisory lock to be released automatically at transaction end. > If you have a mix of clients that want that behavior with others that > want a persistent hold on the same locks, you can't do it with regular > locks. right, plus 4: automatic lock release on error. right now if I'm grabbing in-transaction lock inside a function, I have to put in sub transaction handler to guarantee release if anything non trivial happens mid lock. merlin