From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
Date: | 2010-01-20 03:07:35 |
Message-ID: | 26218.1263956855@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> we already have statement timeout it seems the natural easy to implement
> this is with more hairy logic to calculate the timeout until the next of the
> three timeouts should fire and set sigalarm. I sympathize with whoever tries
> to work that through though, the logic is hairy enough with just the two
> variables...but at least we know that sigalarm works or at least it had
> better...
Yeah, that code is ugly as sin already. Maybe there is a way to
refactor it so it can scale better? I can't help thinking of Polya's
inventor's paradox ("the more general problem may be easier to solve").
If we want to do it without any new system-call dependencies I think
that's probably the only way. I'm not necessarily against new
dependencies, if they're portable --- but it seems these aren't.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-01-20 03:43:44 | XQuery support |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-01-20 02:56:27 | Re: MySQL-ism help patch for psql |