Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Date: 2005-05-02 03:58:50
Message-ID: 4275A57A.9090907@opencloud.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Neil Conway wrote:
> adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr wrote:
>
>> statement_timeout is not a solution if many processes are
>> waiting the resource.
>
>
> Why not?
>
> I think the only problem with using statement_timeout for this purpose
> is that the client connection might die during a long-running
> transaction at a point when no statement is currently executing. Tom's
> suggested transaction_timeout would be a reasonable way to fix this.
> Adnan, if you think this is such a significant problem (I can't say that
> I agree), I'd encourage you to submit a patch.

I raised this a while back on -hackers:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00397.php

but did not get much feedback.

Does anyone have comments on that email?

It's a problem that is unlikely to happen in normal operation, but you
do need to deal with it to cover the network failure cases if you have
an otherwise failure-tolerant cluster..

-O

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2005-05-02 04:08:39 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-02 02:05:45 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2005-05-02 04:08:39 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-02 02:05:45 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1