Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f071001210617n4f952458r1a58f24a97bfaf29@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/21 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>: > Tom Lane írta: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>> I think that it is a very bad idea to implement this feature in a way >>> that is not 100% portable. >> >> Agreed, this is not acceptable. If there were no possible way to >> implement the feature portably, we *might* consider doing it like this. >> But I think more likely it'd get rejected anyway. When there is a >> clear path to a portable solution, it's definitely not going to fly >> to submit a nonportable one. > > OK, I will implement it using setitimer(). > It may not reach 8.5 though, when will this last Commitfest end? The CommitFest ends 2/15, but that's not really the relevant metric. Patches will be marked Returned with Feedback if they are not updated within 4-5 days of the time they were last reviewed, or more aggressively as we get towards the end. Also, if a patch needs a major rewrite, it should be marked Returned with Feedback and resubmitted for this CommitFest. It sounds like this patch meets that criterion; in addition, Tom has expressed concerns that this might be something that should be committed early in the release cycle rather than at the very end. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: