Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date: 2009-09-25 06:25:23
Message-ID: 1253859923.26523.1.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 10:58 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So, while some people have asserted that a lock_timeout GUC would
> allow
> users to retrofit older applications to time out on locks, I just
> don't
> see that being the case. You'd have to refactor regardless, and if
> you're going to, just add the WAIT statement to the lock request.

But note that almost every statement contains a lock request of some
kind. So you'd need to add a WAIT clause to every single statement type
in PostgreSQL.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-09-25 06:29:24 Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2009-09-25 06:21:35 Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling