From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Henryk Szal <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: timeout on lock feature |
Date: | 2001-04-13 18:28:54 |
Message-ID: | 200104131828.OAA21993@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The appropriate way to do this given a LOCK TABLE option would be like
>
> BEGIN;
> LOCK TABLE foo IN ROW EXCLUSIVE MODE WITH TIMEOUT n;
> UPDATE foo SET ...;
> COMMIT;
>
> which restricts the scope of the timeout behavior to just the specific
> lock that the user is thinking of, and doesn't risk breaking fundamental
> system operations.
This is pretty tough because the user has to know the proper lock type,
right?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-13 18:54:47 | Re: Truncation of object names |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-13 18:28:46 | Re: pg_dump ordering problem (rc4) |