Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 'Waiting on lock'

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 'Waiting on lock'
Date: 2007-05-30 16:49:34
Message-ID: 20070530164934.GZ7531@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second.
> 
> It's not one per second, it's after one second (actually
> deadlock_timeout) has elapsed since you started to sleep waiting for a
> lock.  If a deadlock is not detected the process won't be awakened
> again.

Ah, I see..  Actually, if it's just one NOTICE after one second, I think
that'd be fine.  Sorry, misunderstood what was going on.

	Thanks!

		Stephen

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Enrico SirolaDate: 2007-05-30 16:55:29
Subject: table partitioning pl/pgsql helpers
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-05-30 16:43:58
Subject: Re: TOAST usage setting

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group