| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Date: | 2012-06-26 16:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1340729267-sup-6095@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:
> So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
> keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
> Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
> regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
> We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
> and this would be plenty.
>
> Opinions?
My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.
I'll go set the patch "waiting on author". Also, remember to review
some other people's patches.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nils Goroll | 2012-06-26 17:02:31 | why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-06-26 16:43:34 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |