| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Date: | 2004-02-19 15:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA49620BC@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The question is whether we should have a GUC variable to control no
> > waiting on locks or add NO WAIT to specific SQL commands.
> >
> > Does anyone want to vote _against_ the GUC idea for nowait locking. (We
> > already have two voting for such a variable.)
>
> I vote against. We got bit by both the regex and the autocommit GUC vars
> and this is setting up to cause a similar headache with old code on new
> platforms.
I vote for the GUC. Imho it is not comparable to the "autocommit" case,
since it does not change the way your appl needs to react (appl needs to
react to deadlock already).
I personally think a wait period in seconds would be more useful.
Milli second timeouts tend to be misused with way too low values
in this case, imho.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-19 16:01:14 | Re: OIDs, CTIDs, updateable cursors and friends |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2004-02-19 15:09:44 | Re: OIDs, CTIDs, updateable cursors and friends |