| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: case for lock_timeout |
| Date: | 2004-07-01 05:00:29 |
| Message-ID: | 22337.1088658029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com> writes:
> ok, you mean we should put statement timeout with statements
> that potentially lock table exclusively. eg
Actually I think it'd work better to put NOLOCK on the read-only
operations. Those guys should never fail to get the lock they need
under ordinary circumstances. If you happen to be running some kind
of schema-altering process in parallel, then the read-only guys will
fail immediately instead of waiting, but AFAICT that's what you wanted.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2004-07-01 05:35:43 | Re: Problems restarting after database crashed (signal |
| Previous Message | Dennis Gearon | 2004-07-01 04:15:42 | Re: Internationalization |