| From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Date: | 2009-07-27 12:43:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4A6DA0E9.9080006@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera írta:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>
>
>> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC
>> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT
>> is allowed) both should be implemented.
>>
>> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be
>> applied to every lock that the statement would take.
>>
>
> In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053201@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what
> does WAIT [N] buy.
>
Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-07-27 13:00:30 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-07-27 12:35:07 | Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2009-07-25 |