| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Boszormenyi Zoltan" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Marc Cousin" <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |
| Date: | 2010-08-02 20:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4C56DD99020000250003409E@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner írta:
>> I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request
>> that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF. Does
>> anyone feel this approach (without the framework) should be
>> pursued further?
>
> I certainly think so, the current scheme seems to be very fragile
> and doesn't want to be extended.
Sorry, I phrased that question in a rather confusing way; I'm not
sure, but it sounds like you're in favor of dropping this approach
and pursuing the timeout framework in the next CF -- is that right?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-02 20:05:18 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-08-02 19:52:42 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |