From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Statement timeout in pg_rewind |
Date: | 2019-08-26 13:42:46 |
Message-ID: | CAFh8B==mM_hCbVCo5BFfhzzxa-e6iHoOvAJcgxeT9zQorxZtjQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 06:28, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Alexander, it seems to me that we should also consider lock_timeout
> and idle_in_transaction_session_timeout (new as of 9.6), no? We could
Well, I was thinking about it and came to the conclusion that we are
neither taking heavy locks nor explicitly opening a transaction and
therefore we can avoid changing them.
But maybe you are right, having them set to the safe value shouldn't hurt.
> also group the PQexec/PQresultStatus into a simple wrapper which gets
> also called by run_simple_query().
I don't think we can use the same wrapper for run_simple_query() and
for places where we call a SET, because PQresultStatus() returns
PGRES_TUPLES_OK and PGRES_COMMAND_OK respectively.
Passing expected ExecStatusType to the wrapper for comparison is
looking a bit ugly to me.
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ROS Didier | 2019-08-26 14:10:37 | PostgreSQL and TLS 1.2 |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-08-26 13:29:04 | Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar |