| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: AW: timeout on lock feature |
| Date: | 2001-04-18 16:59:04 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D33B6@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is the real reason why I've been holding out for restricting the
> feature to a specific LOCK TABLE statement: if it's designed that way,
> at least you know which lock you are applying the timeout to, and have
> some chance of being able to estimate an appropriate timeout.
As I pointed before - it's half useless.
And I totally do not understand why to object feature
1. that affects users *only when explicitly requested*;
2. whose implementation costs nothing - ie has no drawbacks
for overall system.
It was general practice in project so far: if user want some
feature and it doesn't affect others - let's do it.
What's changed?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Burton | 2001-04-18 17:08:06 | [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore |
| Previous Message | Oliver Seidel | 2001-04-18 16:57:22 | theory of distributed transactions / timeouts |