Re: NO WAIT ...

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> The problem with adding NO WAIT to specific commands is that is
> inheritly unflexible. I think this is why the community has agreed on
> implementing it based on GUC.

I recall no such agreement ... when was this exactly? In any case
Bruce's recent complaints about regex_flavor have altered my opinions
about GUC variables a bit. They are bigger safety risks than they look,
especially ones that change semantics and are intended to be modified on
the fly.

> Do you think it would help to reduce the GUCs flexibility by reducing
> the lock levels a user is allowed to define?

I will vote against the patch no matter what, but I agree that it would
be less dangerous if it were confined to only apply to a limited set of
lock types.

regards, tom lane