| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 'Waiting on lock' |
| Date: | 2007-05-30 16:49:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20070530164934.GZ7531@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second.
>
> It's not one per second, it's after one second (actually
> deadlock_timeout) has elapsed since you started to sleep waiting for a
> lock. If a deadlock is not detected the process won't be awakened
> again.
Ah, I see.. Actually, if it's just one NOTICE after one second, I think
that'd be fine. Sorry, misunderstood what was going on.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Enrico Sirola | 2007-05-30 16:55:29 | table partitioning pl/pgsql helpers |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-30 16:43:58 | Re: TOAST usage setting |