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

Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2010-01-13 07:51:43
Subject: Re: ECPG patch causes warning
Previous:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2010-01-13 06:07:52
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

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