| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2006-11-21 21:12:01 |
| Message-ID: | 17291.1164143521@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So yes, autovacuum should ignore statement_timeout all of the time.
Actually, now that I look at it, this whole discussion was based on an
unfounded assumption. StatementTimeout is only examined upon receipt
of a client command message in postgres.c, so autovac is already not
subject to it. (The old contrib implementation would have been.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-21 21:29:22 | Re: Transaction id wraparound and autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-11-21 20:58:00 | Re: [HACKERS] advanced index (descending and table-presorted |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-11-21 21:15:45 | Re: quick review |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-11-21 21:11:05 | Re: quick review |