| From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Date: | 2009-05-11 19:48:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4A08810F.7060008@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark írta:
> 2009/5/11 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>
>> Does statement_timeout counts against subtransactions as well? No.
>> If a statement finishes before statement_timeout, does it also decrease
>> the possible runtime for the next statement? No. I was talking about
>> locks acquired during one statement.
>>
>
> With respect I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.
>
Sorry, bad rhetorics. Point correctly made is below.
>> He argued about he wants a timeout *independent* from statement_timeout
>> for locks only inside the same statement IIRC.
>>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-11 19:59:41 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2009-05-11 19:24:41 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |