Alvaro Herrera írta:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> 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://email@example.com
>>> Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what
>>> does WAIT [N] buy.
>> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?
And easy of use in diverging from default lock_timeout?
> Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see
> you proposing that.
And you won't see me proposing any other feature removal either :-)
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
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Walker||Date: 2009-07-27 13:16:41|
|Subject: Patch test for Win32 shared memory issue: Success|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-07-27 13:00:30|
|Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5|