| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Date: | 2012-07-13 22:23:31 |
| Message-ID: | 27465.1342218211@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>>> Try SET deadlock_timeout = 0;
Actually, when I try that I get
ERROR: 0 is outside the valid range for parameter "deadlock_timeout" (1 .. 2147483647)
So I don't see any bug here. The places that are unconditionally doing
"enable_timeout_after(..., DeadlockTimeout);" are perfectly fine. The
only place that might need an if-test has already got one:
if (StatementTimeout > 0)
! enable_timeout_after(STATEMENT_TIMEOUT, StatementTimeout);
else
! disable_timeout(STATEMENT_TIMEOUT, false);
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-07-13 22:25:26 | Re: isolation check takes a long time |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-07-13 22:23:21 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |