Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date: 2012-06-27 08:34:47
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2012-06-26 18:49 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
> Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:
>> So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
>> keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
>> Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
>> regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
>> We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
>> and this would be plenty.
>> Opinions?
> My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.

Attached is the version which uses a registration interface.

Also, to further minimize knowledge of timeouts in timeout.c,
all GUCs are moved back to proc.c

> I'll go set the patch "waiting on author". Also, remember to review
> some other people's patches.

I will look into it.

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria

Attachment Content-Type Size
1-timeout-framework-v13.patch text/x-patch 45.4 KB
2-lock_timeout-v13.patch text/x-patch 46.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2012-06-27 09:33:00 Re: new --maintenance-db options
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2012-06-27 08:02:24 Re: Schema version management