"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there are two things going on here:  first, i think we are confusing
> the concepts of lockmode and waitmode, and secondly since in most
> other places wait locks are default with an optional nowait clause,
> how about make advisory locks follow a similar methodology?

I think *you* are confused about lockmode vs waitmode, but the patch is
not.  The functions are

             Name              | Result data type | Argument data types |       
           Description
 pg_advisory_lock              | void             | bigint              | 
obtain exclusive advisory lock
 pg_advisory_lock_shared       | void             | bigint              | 
obtain shared advisory lock
 pg_try_advisory_lock          | boolean          | bigint              | 
obtain exclusive advisory lock if available
 pg_try_advisory_lock_shared   | boolean          | bigint              | 
obtain shared advisory lock if available
 pg_advisory_unlock            | boolean          | bigint              | 
release exclusive advisory lock
 pg_advisory_unlock_shared     | boolean          | bigint              | 
release shared advisory lock

These also come in flavors taking 2 int4s, which is just a different way
of representing the locked object's identity, it's not different as far
as lock modes go.  And there's

 pg_advisory_unlock_all        | void             |                     | 
release all advisory locks

which comes in just one flavor.

I don't particularly care about "pg_try_advisory_lock" vs
"pg_advisory_lock_nowait", but it's not entirely obvious which modifier
to put first if we put them both on the end, ie is it
"pg_advisory_lock_shared_nowait" or "pg_advisory_lock_nowait_shared"?
Possibly the names are easier to remember as they are.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match

Reply via email to