From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'Craig Ringer' <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, 'Hans-Jürgen Schönig' <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Ants Aasma' <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Amit kapila' <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
Date: | 2013-02-27 18:38:44 |
Message-ID: | 512E52B4.6000307@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013-02-27 19:07 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom, can you comment on your thoughts around this notion of an aggregate
>> time constraint for waiting on locks? As mentioned upthread, I like the
>> idea of having an upper-limit on waiting for relation-level locks, but
>> once you're past that, I'm not sure that an aggregate waiting-on-locks
>> is any better than the overall statement-level timeout and it seems
>> somewhat messy, to me anyway.
> I think anything that makes this patch simpler is a good idea. I don't
> like any of the accum_time stuff: it complicates the timeout API
> unreasonably and slows down existing use cases.
Perfect. :-)
> Some other thoughts:
>
> * timeout_reset_base_time() seems like an ugly and unnecessary API wart.
> I don't like the timeout_start state variable at all; if you need
> several timeouts to be scheduled relative to the exact same starting
> point, can't you just do that in a single enable_multiple_timeouts()
> call? And I think the optional TMPARAM_ACCUM action is completely
> unacceptable,
If we get rid of the per-statement variant, there is no need for that either.
> because it supposes that every user of a timeout, now and
> in the future, is okay with having their accumulated time reset at the
> same point. The whole point of having invented this timeout API is to
> serve timeout uses we don't currently foresee, so actions that affect
> every timeout seem pretty undesirable.
>
> * I don't care for changing the API of enable_timeout_after when there
> is in fact not a single caller using the flags argument (probably
> because the only defined flag is too baroque to be useful). If there
> were a use case for the "accum" action it'd be better to have a separate
> API function for it, probably.
This way, enable_timeout_after() wouldn't have this extra argument either.
Thanks for your kind words.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-02-27 19:06:34 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-27 18:36:17 | Re: isolation test problem with MSVC (VC2012) / Windows 8 |