| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-20 00:10:42 |
| Message-ID: | 23112.1263946242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> A larger question, which I think has been raised before but I have not
>> seen a satisfactory answer for, is whether the system will behave sanely
>> at all with this type of patch in place.
> I am not too sure what you think this might break?
I'm not sure either. If we weren't at the tail end of a devel cycle,
with a large/destabilizing patch already in there that has a great deal
of exposure to details of locking behavior, I'd not be so worried.
Maybe the right thing is to bounce this back to be reconsidered in the
first fest of the next cycle. It's not ready to commit anyway because
of the portability problems, so ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-20 00:13:27 | Re: Patch rev 2: MySQL-ism help patch for psql |
| Previous Message | David Christensen | 2010-01-20 00:05:32 | Re: Patch rev 2: MySQL-ism help patch for psql |