RE: AW: timeout on lock feature

> This is the real reason why I've been holding out for restricting the
> feature to a specific LOCK TABLE statement: if it's designed that way,
> at least you know which lock you are applying the timeout to, and have
> some chance of being able to estimate an appropriate timeout.

As I pointed before - it's half useless.

And I totally do not understand why to object feature

1. that affects users *only when explicitly requested*;
2. whose implementation costs nothing - ie has no drawbacks  for overall system.

It was general practice in project so far: if user want some
feature and it doesn't affect others - let's do it.
What's changed?

Vadim