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

Re: NO WAIT ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NO WAIT ...
Date: 2004-02-18 18:45:18
Message-ID: 24890.1077129918@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> The problem with adding NO WAIT to specific commands is that is 
> inheritly unflexible. I think this is why the community has agreed on 
> implementing it based on GUC.

I recall no such agreement ... when was this exactly?  In any case
Bruce's recent complaints about regex_flavor have altered my opinions
about GUC variables a bit.  They are bigger safety risks than they look,
especially ones that change semantics and are intended to be modified on
the fly.

> Do you think it would help to reduce the GUCs flexibility by reducing 
> the lock levels a user is allowed to define?

I will vote against the patch no matter what, but I agree that it would
be less dangerous if it were confined to only apply to a limited set of
lock types.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-02-18 18:55:19
Subject: Re: NO WAIT ...
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-02-18 18:43:47
Subject: Re: NO WAIT ...

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-02-18 18:55:19
Subject: Re: NO WAIT ...
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-02-18 18:43:47
Subject: Re: NO WAIT ...

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