Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date: 2012-06-26 12:43:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmoboHAtfydQxLGbx422nLN9227oe8AZ2Rjxznaf4ECfRKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> I know, but it doesn't feel right to "register" static functionality.

We do it elsewhere. The overhead is pretty minimal compared to other
things we already do during startup, and avoiding the need for the
array to have a fixed-size seems worth it, IMHO.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-06-26 13:25:04 Re: new --maintenance-db options
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-06-26 12:40:30 Re: patch: avoid heavyweight locking on hash metapage