| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP? |
| Date: | 2011-03-29 12:58:24 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=gf52kpRkZWT01XRs8JejDeiE9gPqjkHZ1eAoM@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is it worth thinking about having an explicit setting for deadlock
> priority? That'd be more work, of course, and I'm not sure it it's
> worth it, but it'd also provide stronger guarantees than you can get
> with this proposal.
Priority makes better sense, I think.
That's what we're trying to control after all.
But you would need to change the way the deadlock detector works...
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-29 13:20:38 | Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-29 12:26:44 | Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP? |