Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Boszormenyi Zoltan" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Marc Cousin" <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review
Date: 2010-08-02 20:11:43
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request
>> that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF.

> I think "Returned with Feedback" would be more appropriate than
> "Rejected", since we're asking for a rework, rather than saying -
> we just don't want this. But otherwise, +1.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-08-02 20:21:04 Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-08-02 20:05:18 Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review