Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> However, we'd want a separate lock timeout for autovac, of course. I'm
> not at all keen on a *statement* timeout on autovacuum; as long as
> autovacuum is doing work, I don't want to cancel it. Also, WTF would we
> set it to?
Yeah --- in the presence of vacuum cost delay, in particular, a
statement timeout seems about useless for AV.
> Going the statement timeout route seems like a way to create a LOT of
> extra work, troubleshooting, getting it wrong, and releasing patch
> updates. Please let's just create a lock timeout.
Do we actually need a lock timeout either? The patch that was being
discussed just involved failing if you couldn't get it immediately.
I suspect that's sufficient for AV. At least, nobody's made a
compelling argument why we need to expend a very substantially larger
amount of work to do something different.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-01-17 19:49:45|
|Subject: Re: pl/python refactoring|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-01-17 19:35:23|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR