Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-02-27 20:38 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> 2013-02-27 20:06 keltezéssel, Stephen Frost írta:
>> Zoltan,
>>
>> * Boszormenyi Zoltan (zb(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
>>> If we get rid of the per-statement variant, there is no need for that either.
>> For my 2c, I didn't see Tom's comments as saying that we shouldn't have
>> that capability, just that the implementation was ugly. :)
>
> But I am happy to drop it. ;-)
>
>> That said, perhaps we should just drop it for now, get the lock_timeout
>> piece solid, and then come back to the question about lock_timeout_stmt.
>
> OK, let's do it this way.

Dropped the per-statement lock timeout for now. The patch is
now obviously simpler and shorter. I renamed
enable/disable_multiple_timeouts() to simply enable/disable_timeouts()
since the List* argument implies more than one of them and
you need to type less.

The comments and the documentation needs another review,
to make sure I left no traces of the per-statements variant.
I can't see any but I stared at this patch for so long that I can't
be sure anymore.

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/