From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_locks view and user locks
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:36:19 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A74A8@Herge.rcsinc.local>
In-Reply-To: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A74A8@Herge.rcsinc.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200409132136.20025.peter_e@gmx.net>

Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Second,
> Is there a reason why user level locks are completely undocumented?
> AFAICT, There is no mention of them in anywhere in the docs,
> particularly 12.4, which describes methods for application managed
> concurrency.  The availability of cooperative long term locks is
> (IMO) a really nice feature, particularly for people porting legacy
> applications which depend on explicit locking (there is some good
> info in the user lock module which is unfortunately under the GPL).

That's the whole problem.  I don't think anyone objects to the user lock 
principle, but as long as it's GPL, we won't support it.  It was 
probably a mistake to accept this module in the first place.  I believe 
some people have been trying to get the module relicensed, but that 
evidently never happened.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/