| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Date: | 2009-07-27 13:00:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20090727130029.GD6459@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera írta:
> > Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >
> >> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC
> >> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT
> >> is allowed) both should be implemented.
> >>
> >> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be
> >> applied to every lock that the statement would take.
> >
> > In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053201@sss.pgh.pa.us
> > Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what
> > does WAIT [N] buy.
>
> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?
Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see
you proposing that.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2009-07-27 13:06:27 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2009-07-27 12:43:21 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |