| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Date: | 2012-07-13 22:23:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1342218070-sup-7781@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of vie jul 13 18:11:27 -0400 2012:
> Regarding the lock_timeout functionality: the patch can be reduced to
> about half of its current size and it would be a lot less intrusive if the
> LockAcquire() callers don't need to report the individual object types
> and names or OIDs. Do you prefer the verbose ereport()s or a
> generic one about "lock timeout triggered" in ProcSleep()?
For what it's worth, I would appreciate it if you would post the lock
timeout patch for the upcoming commitfest. This one is already almost a
month long now. That way we can close this CF item soon and concentrate
on the remaining patches. This one has received its fair share of
committer attention already, ISTM.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2012-07-13 22:23:31 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-13 22:11:37 | Re: initdb and fsync |