Re: timeout on lock feature

I was thinking SET because UPDATE does an auto-lock.

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I can imagine some people wanting this.  However, 7.1 has new deadlock
> > detection code, so I would you make a 7.1 version and send it over.  We
> > can get it into 7.2.
> 
> I object strongly to any such "feature" in the low-level form that
> Henryk proposes, because it would affect *ALL* locking.  Do you really
> want all your other transactions to go belly-up if, say, someone vacuums
> pg_class?
> 
> A variant of LOCK TABLE that explicitly requests a timeout might make
> sense, though.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026