| From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lock timeout patch |
| Date: | 2004-06-28 06:16:54 |
| Message-ID: | 40DFB7D6.90304@noanet06.noanet.nttdata.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
> could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
> statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this
> proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
I think statement_timeout and lock_timeout are different.
If I set statement_timeout to 1000 to detect a lock timeout,
I can't run a query which takes over 1 sec.
If a lock wait is occured, I want to detect it immediately,
but I still want to run a long-running query.
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-28 07:45:18 | Re: Tablespace permissions issue |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-06-28 05:35:35 | Tablespace permissions issue |