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

Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> Alvaro Herrera írta:
>
>> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC
>>> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT
>>> is allowed) both should be implemented.
>>>
>>> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be
>>> applied to every lock that the statement would take.
>>>
>>>
>> In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053201@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what
>> does WAIT [N] buy
>>
>
> Okay, we implemented only the lock_timeout GUC.
> Patch attached, hopefully in an acceptable form.
> Documentation included in the patch, lock_timeout
> works the same way as statement_timeout, takes
> value in milliseconds and 0 disables the timeout.
>
> Best regards,
> Zoltán Böszörményi
>

New patch attached. It's only regenerated for current CVS
so it should apply cleanly.

--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics

----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/