From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, ronzo <m(dot)ronzoni(at)nocerainformatica(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postresql 8.0 Beta 3 - SELECT ... FOR UPDATE |
Date: | 2004-11-25 04:01:00 |
Message-ID: | 24300.1101355260@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate
>> between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I
>> should be using userlocks...
> Wouldn't a LOCK NOWAIT be a better solution? That is new in 8.0.
LOCK NOWAIT is only helpful if you can express your problem as not
wanting to wait for a table-level lock. When you're trying to grab a
row-level lock via SELECT FOR UPDATE, there isn't any provision for
NOWAIT.
The notion of a global lock_timeout setting is bogus IMHO, because
every proposed application of it has failed to consider the locks taken
internally by the system. But that objection wouldn't apply to a SELECT
FOR UPDATE NOWAIT command where the "no wait" behavior only applied to
the row lock being explicitly grabbed.
I thought I remembered someone working on such a thing just recently.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-25 04:30:46 | Re: lwlocks and starvation |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-11-25 03:59:18 | Re: Postresql 8.0 Beta 3 - SELECT ... FOR UPDATE |