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

Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-27 13:00:30
Message-ID: 20090727130029.GD6459@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera írta:
> > Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >   
> >> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC
> >> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT
> >> is allowed) both should be implemented.
> >>
> >> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be
> >> applied to every lock that the statement would take.
> >
> > In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053201@sss.pgh.pa.us
> > Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient.  I'm not sure what
> > does WAIT [N] buy.
> 
> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?

Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see
you proposing that.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2009-07-27 13:06:27
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Previous:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2009-07-27 12:43:21
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

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