Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache
От | Atri Sharma |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOeZVidcTkp+uCPJYXX7Gjje6nv5GAReKpTMU=f5PsQyOTdsuQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> writes: >> On a different note, shouldn't we have a time out for a content lock >> in buffer cache? > > No; the overhead of setting up and canceling such a timeout would > greatly outweigh any possible benefit. > > Generally speaking, LWLocks are not meant to be used in situations where > the lock hold time might be long enough to justify worrying about > timeouts. If you need that kind of behavior, use a heavyweight lock. Right, the overheads,especially in case of interruptions would be high. I was musing over a possible condition where a rogue client gets the backend to process queries which take a *lot* of time(note, this is only in my head atm.I may be completely wrong here). Wouldnt something on the lines of a timeout help here? Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri l'apprenant
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: