From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Henryk Szal <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | AW: Re: timeout on lock feature |
Date: | 2001-04-18 08:12:34 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368291@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Henryk Szal" <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl> writes:
> > YES, this feature should affect ALL locks.
> > 'Timeout on lock' parameter says to server "I CAN'T WAIT WITH THIS
> > TRANSACTION TOO LONG BECAUSE OF (ANY) LOCK",
>
> It still seems to me that what such an application wants is not a lock
> timeout at all, but an overall limit on the total elapsed time for the
> query. If you can't afford to wait to get a lock, why is it OK to wait
> (perhaps much longer) for I/O or computation?
Yes, that is a valid argument. The only thing I can counter is that (in OLTP)
it is usually easy to predict the amount of work that needs to be done
for your own tx (we are typically talking about 1 - 200 ms here), but it is not easy
to predict how long another session needs to complete it's transaction
(the other session might be OLAP, vacuum ...).
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-04-18 08:42:04 | AW: [BUG] views and functions on relations |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-04-18 07:54:11 | AW: timeout on lock feature |