From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NO WAIT ... |
Date: | 2004-02-18 18:45:18 |
Message-ID: | 24890.1077129918@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> The problem with adding NO WAIT to specific commands is that is
> inheritly unflexible. I think this is why the community has agreed on
> implementing it based on GUC.
I recall no such agreement ... when was this exactly? In any case
Bruce's recent complaints about regex_flavor have altered my opinions
about GUC variables a bit. They are bigger safety risks than they look,
especially ones that change semantics and are intended to be modified on
the fly.
> Do you think it would help to reduce the GUCs flexibility by reducing
> the lock levels a user is allowed to define?
I will vote against the patch no matter what, but I agree that it would
be less dangerous if it were confined to only apply to a limited set of
lock types.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-18 18:55:19 | Re: NO WAIT ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-18 18:43:47 | Re: NO WAIT ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-18 18:55:19 | Re: NO WAIT ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-18 18:43:47 | Re: NO WAIT ... |