--
Greg
On 11 May 2009, at 11:18, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postg...@cybertec.at>
wrote:
hello greg,
the thing with statement_timeout is a little bit of an issue.
you could do:
SET statement_timeout TO ...;
SELECT FOR UPDATE ...
SET statement_timeout TO default;
this practically means 3 commands.
I tend to think there should be protocol level support for options
like this but that would require buy-in from the interface writers.
the killer argument, however, is that the lock might very well
happen ways after the statement has started.
Sure. But Isn't the statement_timeout behaviour what an application
writer would actually want? Why would he care how long some sub-part
of the statement took? Isn't an application -you used the example of a
web app - really concerned with its response time?
imagine something like that (theoretical example):
SELECT ...
FROM
WHERE x > ( SELECT some_very_long_thing)
FOR UPDATE ...;
some operation could run for ages without ever taking a single,
relevant lock here.
so, you don't really get the same thing with statement_timeout.
regards,
hans
Greg Stark wrote:
Can't you to this today with statement_timeout? Surely you do want
to rollback the whole transaction or at least the subtransaction if
you have error handling.
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Professional PostgreSQL Consulting, Support, Training
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: www.postgresql-support.de
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
