Quick Links

Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From:	Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:	Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc:	Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject:	Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer \| NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date:	2009-09-23 16:20:31
Message-ID:	3142.1253722831@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Thread:
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Jeff,
>> Will statement_timeout not suffice for that use case?

> Well, currently statement_timeout doesn't affect waiting for locks.

Sure it does.

> And as a DBA, I don't think I'd want the same timeout for executing
> queries as for waiting for a lock.

Well, that's exactly what Jeff is questioning. How big is the use-case
for that exactly?

regards, tom lane

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Heikki Linnakangas	2009-09-23 16:30:31	Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1
Previous Message	Josh Berkus	2009-09-23 16:12:41	Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer \| NOWAIT] for 8.5