Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 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 20:03:16
Message-ID: 4A088484.7090309@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> But more generally, what you are proposing seems largely duplicative
> with statement_timeout. The only reason I can see for a
> lock-wait-specific timeout is that you have a need to control the
> length of a specific wait and *not* the overall time spent. Hans
> already argued upthread why he wants a feature that doesn't act like
> statement_timeout.

I agree with Tom here; I want to wait for a specific amount of time for
a specific lock request.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2009-05-11 20:37:18 Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-05-11 19:59:41 Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5