| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Date: | 2009-10-04 00:51:33 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910031751v49e2195fub702dde095a97b86@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As to #3, that's obviously gotta be fixed. If we're to further
> consider this patch for this CommitFest, that fixing needs to happen
> pretty soon.
Since it has been 6 days since I posted this and more than 2 weeks
since the problem was found, I am moving this patch to returned with
feedback.
If it is resubmitted for the next CommitFest, please change the
subject line to something like "lock_timeout GUC" so that it will
match what the patch actually does. I think we have consensus that a
GUC is the way to go here, and the feature seems to have enough
support. Investigating a set-GUC-for-this-statement-only feature also
seems to have some support, but that would be a separate patch and not
necessary to satisfy the OP's use case.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-04 00:54:50 | Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2009-10-03 23:22:03 | Re: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest) |