Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
Date: 2007-09-25 13:16:53
Message-ID: 17820.1190726213@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> SQLServer and DB2 have more need of this than PostgreSQL, but we do
> still need it.

Why? What does it do that statement_timeout doesn't do better?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-09-25 14:40:14 Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2007-09-25 13:00:40 Re: Thread-safe PREPARE in ecpg