Magnus Hagander wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > According to what you just told me, the original coding is storing the > > name in a "local namespace", which presumably means it won't conflict > > anyway. Ergo, the existing coding is simply broken and there's nothing > > we can do about it. > > Local namespace = Session local, not process local. So it would properly > protect against two processes started in the same session. One session > is, for example, an interactive login. But not if they were started by > different users, since they'd be in different sessions.
But those different users would not have access to the same set of files, so it wouldn't work anyway, right? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
