| From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-13 06:14:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3073cc9b1001122214r23ed7e9co34e30fbf073d8b17@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/13 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
> Tom Lane írta:
>>
>> If this patch is touching those parts of relcache.c, it probably needs
>> rethinking.
>>
>
> What I did there is to check the return value of LockRelationOid()
the hunk was because a diference in the position (i guess patch accept
a hunk of reasonable size, assuming there is something like a
reasonable size for that)
and is not touching the same as your refactor (sorry if i explain myself bad)
> and also elog(PANIC) if the lock wasn't available.
> Does it need rethinking?
>
well, i actually think that PANIC is too high for this...
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2010-01-13 07:51:43 | Re: ECPG patch causes warning |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-01-13 06:07:52 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |