| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-21 15:59:21 |
| Message-ID: | 8492.1264089561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>> I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest
>> patch by introducing the validator function. Is it enough
>> to check for
>> (source == PGC_S_DEFAULT || source == PGC_S_SESSION)
>> to ensure only interactive sessions can get lock timeouts?
> I'm not sure that I know how this should work, but that approach seems
> a little strange to me. Why would we not allow PGC_S_USER, for
> example?
Why is this a good idea at all? I can easily see somebody feeling that
he'd like autovacuums to fail rather than block on locks for a long
time, for example.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-21 16:00:54 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Previous Message | Leonardo F | 2010-01-21 15:44:19 | Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |