Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I can imagine some people wanting this. However, 7.1 has new deadlock
> detection code, so I would you make a 7.1 version and send it over. We
> can get it into 7.2.
I object strongly to any such "feature" in the low-level form that
Henryk proposes, because it would affect *ALL* locking. Do you really
want all your other transactions to go belly-up if, say, someone vacuums
pg_class?
A variant of LOCK TABLE that explicitly requests a timeout might make
sense, though.
regards, tom lane