| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'Hans-Jürgen Schönig' <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Ants Aasma' <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Amit kapila' <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Date: | 2013-03-04 03:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20130304033449.GK16142@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig,
* Craig Ringer (craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> There are questions about whether this is a good idea, and there's still
> discussion ongoing. It doesn't look like it's in a state where we can
> confidently say "let's include this for 9.3" to me, but I'd like other
> viewpoints.
For my part, I think the straight-up 'lock_timeout' piece, which is in
the latest patch, is in pretty good shape. It's much less invasive and
provides a capability which other RDBMS's have and is reasonably
straight forward.
> Should we bump this to the next CF? It's clearly still a viable idea,
> just possibly not ready yet.
Unless a committer steps up to take on the statement-level lock-wait
timeout, it's not going to get into 9.3, imv. Waiting to add that
(whatever it ends up being) until post-9.3 makes sense to me, but I'd
hate to miss getting the simpler lock_timeout capability into 9.3.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-03-04 03:37:56 | Re: Partial patch status update, 3/3/13 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-03-04 03:30:11 | Re: find libxml2 using pkg-config |