| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-21 16:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | 8802.1264090446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> You expressed stability concerns coming from this patch.
> Were these concerns because of locks timing out making
> things fragile or because of general feelings about introducing
> such a patch at the end of the release cycle? I was thinking
> about the former, hence this modification.
Indeed, I am *very* concerned about the stability implications of this
patch. I just don't believe that arbitrarily restricting which
processes the GUC applies to will make it any safer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-21 16:19:51 | Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Previous Message | Leonardo F | 2010-01-21 16:13:25 | Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |