On 1/16/11 11:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I would prefer it if we had a settable lock timeout, as suggested many
> moons ago. When that was discussed before it was said there was no
> difference between a statement timeout and a lock timeout, but I think
> there clearly is, this case being just one example.
Whatever happend to lock timeouts, anyway? We even had some patches
floating around for 9.0 and they disappeared.
However, we'd want a separate lock timeout for autovac, of course. I'm
not at all keen on a *statement* timeout on autovacuum; as long as
autovacuum is doing work, I don't want to cancel it. Also, WTF would we
set it to?
Going the statement timeout route seems like a way to create a LOT of
extra work, troubleshooting, getting it wrong, and releasing patch
updates. Please let's just create a lock timeout.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
