From: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Henryk Szal" <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: timeout on lock feature |
Date: | 2001-04-18 00:34:33 |
Message-ID: | si8zkzf3l2.fsf@daffy.airs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Henryk Szal" <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl> writes:
> YES, I DO! My transaction can't wait.
> If parser on planner is blocked, then i want to abort my transaction.
What are your actual timing constraints? Is the constraint ``no
database table access may take longer than 10 seconds?'' Or is it
``no database transaction may take longer than 10 seconds?'' Or is
the constraint ``this operation may not take longer than 10 seconds?''
If the first is the actual constraint, then indeed a timeout on table
access is appropriate. But that would be a weird constraint. Can you
explain further why you need this?
If the second is the actual constraint, that also sounds strange; a
database transaction is not normally a complete transaction. You
usually have to worry about other communication overhead.
If the third is the actual constraint, then shouldn't you do the
timeout at the operation level, rather than at the database level?
What is preventing you from doing that?
Ian
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3988: A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-04-18 00:59:32 | Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs? |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-04-18 00:28:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: three VERY minor things with 7.1 final |