Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date: 2009-09-21 19:14:27
Message-ID: 20090921191426.GR29793@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas escribió:

> Of course, I don't want:
>
> - GUCs that I'm going to set, execute one statement, and the unset
> (and this likely falls into that category).
> - GUCs that are poorly designed so that it's not clear, even to an
> experienced user, what value to set.
> - GUCs that exist only to work around the inability of the database to
> figure out the appropriate value without user input.
>
> On the flip side, rereading the thread, one major advantage of the GUC
> is that it can be used for statements other than SELECT, which
> hard-coded syntax can't. That might be enough to make me change my
> vote.

Perhaps we'd benefit from a way to set a variable for a single query;
something like

WITH ( SET query_lock_timeout = 5s ) SELECT ...

Of course, this particular syntax doesn't work because WITH is already
taken.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-09-21 19:18:11 Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2009-09-21 19:09:32 Progress on Writeable CTEs