Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > 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?
Yeah --- in the presence of vacuum cost delay, in particular, a statement timeout seems about useless for AV. > 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. Do we actually need a lock timeout either? The patch that was being discussed just involved failing if you couldn't get it immediately. I suspect that's sufficient for AV. At least, nobody's made a compelling argument why we need to expend a very substantially larger amount of work to do something different. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers