Fri Aug 20 00:31:54 PDT 2010
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Fwd: Slony & Locking
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Fwd: Slony & Locking
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 8/19/2010 5:33 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Christopher Browne > <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> wrote: > >> 3. An extra parameter to EXECUTE SCRIPT is a quoted comma-separated >> list of the IDs (as in sl_table.tab_id) of tables to be locked. >> >> execute script (set id=1, filename='/tmp/ddl-script.sql', >> event node=3, tables to lock='1,2,17,29,35'); >> >> While this is somewhat nice in the sense that we can validate (and >> raise errors, if invalid) that the tables being locked are >> legitimate ones, the table IDs aren't the most obvious thing in >> the world to look up. >> >> 4. An extra parameter to EXECUTE SCRIPT indicates the filename of >> a file containing the LOCK TABLE requests. >> >> execute script (set id=1, filename='/tmp/ddl-script.sql', >> event node=3, lockfile='/tmp/locks.sql'); >> >> I think this is more or less what you're suggesting, and it seems >> fine to me. >> >> I think I like "#4" the best of any of the options, thus far. I'm not >> sure Jan/Steve have seen them, so it's premature to treat it as >> "decided." > > +1 to option 4. That seems like the most humane option. Agreed, although I find "lockfile" a particularly bad choice for the syntax. And for clarification, the default is to lock all tables in all sets, not ALL TABLES. Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Fwd: Slony & Locking
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Fwd: Slony & Locking
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list