X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C87B9DCC39 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:38:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03403-02 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:38:08 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ACD9DCBC8 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:38:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k2SGc3mj002967; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:38:03 -0500 (EST) To: Thomas Hallgren cc: Simon Riggs , Martijn van Oosterhout , PostgreSQL-development , PL/Java Development Subject: Re: Shared memory In-reply-to: <44295AB0.5060203@tada.se> References: <4423CF32.3060406@tada.se> <20060324125851.GC8718@svana.org> <4427A8F1.3020009@tada.se> <14559.1143473507@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4428125D.7000707@tada.se> <1143541439.3839.323.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44295AB0.5060203@tada.se> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Hallgren message dated "Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:48:00 +0200" Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:38:03 -0500 Message-ID: <2966.1143563883@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.114 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114] X-Spam-Score: 0.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/1189 X-Sequence-Number: 81587 Thomas Hallgren writes: > This FENCED/NOT FENCED terminology would be a good way to > differentiate between the two approaches. Any chance of that syntax > making it into the PostgreSQL grammar, should the need arise? Of what value would it be to have it in the grammar? The behavior would be entirely internal to any particular PL in any case. regards, tom lane