| From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lock timeout patch |
| Date: | 2004-06-28 23:34:14 |
| Message-ID: | 40E0AAF6.6020106@noanet06.noanet.nttdata.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat wrote:
>>I think statement_timeout and lock_timeout are different.
>>
>>If I set statement_timeout to 1000 to detect a lock timeout,
>>I can't run a query which takes over 1 sec.
>>
>>If a lock wait is occured, I want to detect it immediately,
>>but I still want to run a long-running query.
>
> How is your problem not solved by NOWAIT?
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-lock.html
I agree that it's one of the solutions when we use LOCK explicitly.
But LOCK does only lock a whole table, doesn't it?
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2004-06-29 00:25:27 | Re: lock timeout patch |
| Previous Message | Jeff Keller | 2004-06-28 22:59:11 | Capacity Planning: Repost from pgsql-admin |