Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Date: 2010-01-20 16:03:27
Message-ID: 13126.1264003407@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/1/20 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>> Attached with the proposed modification to lift the portability concerns.

> I think that it is a very bad idea to implement this feature in a way
> that is not 100% portable.

Agreed, this is not acceptable. If there were no possible way to
implement the feature portably, we *might* consider doing it like this.
But I think more likely it'd get rejected anyway. When there is a
clear path to a portable solution, it's definitely not going to fly
to submit a nonportable one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-20 16:14:23 Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-20 15:42:11 Re: lock_timeout GUC patch