Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Tom Lane írta:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>   
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:
>>     
>>> I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest
>>> patch by introducing the validator function. Is it enough
>>> to check for
>>>    (source == PGC_S_DEFAULT || source == PGC_S_SESSION)
>>> to ensure only interactive sessions can get lock timeouts?
>>>       
>
>   
>> I'm not sure that I know how this should work, but that approach seems
>> a little strange to me.  Why would we not allow PGC_S_USER, for
>> example?
>>     
>
> Why is this a good idea at all?  I can easily see somebody feeling that
> he'd like autovacuums to fail rather than block on locks for a long
> time, for example.
>   

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.

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

-- 
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics

----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/