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

Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date: 2012-06-26 16:49:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:

> So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
> keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
> Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
> regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
> We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
> and this would be plenty.
> Opinions?

My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.

I'll go set the patch "waiting on author".  Also, remember to review
some other people's patches.

Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nils GorollDate: 2012-06-26 17:02:31
Subject: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Previous:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2012-06-26 16:43:34
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

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