| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_sleep_enhancements.patch |
| Date: | 2014-01-29 19:30:48 |
| Message-ID: | 52E956E8.30706@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/29/2014 08:21 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> second question - is not this functionality too dangerous? If somebody
> use it as scheduler, then
>
> a) can holds connect, session data, locks too long time
> b) it can stop on query timeout probably much more early then user expect
>
> What is expected use case?
It is no more dangerous than plain pg_sleep(). The use case is
convenience and clarity of code.
I don't think people will be using it as a scheduler any more than they
do with pg_sleep() because it can't cross transaction boundaries.
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-01-29 19:36:55 | Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3) |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-29 19:25:25 | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |