| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Date: | 2004-02-19 16:35:47 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA49620BD@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I personally think a wait period in seconds would be more useful.
> > Milli second timeouts tend to be misused with way too low values
> > in this case, imho.
>
> I understand, but GUC lost the vote. I have updated the TODO list to
> indicate this. Tatsuo posted a patch to add NO WAIT to the LOCK
> command, so we will see if we can get that into CVS.
Ok, I can see the advantages of that approach too.
Too bad there is no standard for this.
And it is probably really true that statement_timeout solves
the problem of very long (indefinite :-) waits for locks.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-02-19 17:21:20 | Re: Replication eRServer problems |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-02-19 16:05:13 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |