Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP?

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-29 13:20:38
Subject: Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-29 12:26:44
Subject: Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group