On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > A more philosophical question for the other devs, should we consider > depreciating the use of the explicit row lock... lock acquisition is slow > and dangerous, since it can DOS the server. Or perhaps change the semantics > to have a low-lock-wait period (lets say 20-50ms?), so the client can > busy-wait the server instead of tying up IPC threads?
Yes. We need this. Should we do this as part of 0.20.0 when we're doing all the other API? Change the lock call adding a timeout or just stipulate internally how long it waits returning success or timeout dependent on whether lock was acquired or not? St.Ack
