| From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| 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 19:52:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4C57220A.7010108@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Kevin Grittner írta:
> Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> This time, it's this case that doesn't work :
>>
>
>
>> I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here.
>>
>
> Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4C516C3A.6090102@cybertec.at
>
> 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-02 20:00:41 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-02 19:09:19 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |