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

Re: lock timeout patch

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lock timeout patch
Date: 2004-06-28 19:24:54
Message-ID: 1088450694.31168.71.camel@camel (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 02:16, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
> > could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
> > statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one.  I think this
> > proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
> I think statement_timeout and lock_timeout are different.
> If I set statement_timeout to 1000 to detect a lock timeout,
> I can't run a query which takes over 1 sec.
> If a lock wait is occured, I want to detect it immediately,
> but I still want to run a long-running query.

How is your problem not solved by NOWAIT?

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-28 19:39:02
Subject: Re: improper call to spi_printtup ???
Previous:From: Mike RylanderDate: 2004-06-28 18:40:10
Subject: Quick question regarding tablespaces

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group