Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c2d9e70e0709241926p29e063d9xd92cca7062eae28a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On 9/24/07, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 23:49 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > On 6/19/07, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > > related TODO items: > > > - add a WAIT n clause in same SQL locations as NOWAIT > > > - add a lock_wait_timeout (USERSET), default = 0 (unlimited waiting) > > > > > > to provide better control over lock waits. > > > > > > > are these actual TODO items? i can't find them on the TODO list and i > > don't remember any discussion nor patch about this > > They are my proposals for TODO items to assist with application > development. > while i'm not at all comfortable with the idea of a GUC for this, the WAIT clause seems to be useful. just out of curiosity, why the NOWAIT patch wasn't do it that way in first place, i mean like a WAIT clause and when receiving NOWAIT transform it in WAIT 0? maybe dicussion? there's concensus in adding a WAIT clause? -- regards, Jaime Casanova "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." Richard Cook
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: