On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > A larger question, which I think has been raised before but I have not > seen a satisfactory answer for, is whether the system will behave sanely > at all with this type of patch in place. I don't really think that a > single lock timeout applicable to every possible reason to wait is going > to be nice to use; and I'm afraid in some contexts it could render > things completely nonfunctional. (In particular I think that Hot > Standby is fragile enough already without this.) It seems particularly > imprudent to make such a thing USERSET, implying that any clueless or > malicious user could set it in a way that would cause problems, if there > are any to cause.
The obvious alternative is to have specific syntax to allow for waits on specific types of statements; however, based on the previous round of conversation, I thought we had concluded that the present design was the least of evils. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01730.php I am not too sure what you think this might break? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
