| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Ansley <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec-telecom-systems(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, Henryk Szal <szal(at)doctorq(dot)com(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: timeout on lock feature |
| Date: | 2001-04-17 16:08:37 |
| Message-ID: | 24074.987523717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Ansley <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec-telecom-systems(dot)com> writes:
> Sorry for my forgetfulness (and a search through geocrawler didn't turn up
> anything useful), but what was the problem with something like NOWAIT?
> e.g.: SELECT * FROM a FOR UPDATE NOWAIT;
> where, if the required lock could not be obtained immediately, this
> statement would raise an error.
I have no objection to that ... it does not cover anything except FOR
UPDATE, though, which is probably less general than some of the other
folks want.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Ansley | 2001-04-17 16:09:55 | RE: AW: timeout on lock feature |
| Previous Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2001-04-17 16:00:05 | row archiving trigger function |