On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 09:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > SQLServer and DB2 have more need of this than PostgreSQL, but we do
> > still need it.
> Why? What does it do that statement_timeout doesn't do better?
If the execution time is negligible, then setting statement_timeout is
the same thing as setting a lock timeout.
If execution time is not negligible, then you may want to tell the
difference between waiting for completion against waiting forever
without doing anything useful at all.
It's also easier to set an all encompassing lock timeout at User level
than it is to set statement_timeout on individual transactions issued by
Plus, if applications are written using these concepts it is easier to
port them to PostgreSQL.
Not planning to work on this myself, but I think it is a valid TODO.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-09-25 14:56:47|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-09-25 13:16:53|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' |