-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2013 09:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote: >> But unlike statement_timeout, >> with lock_timeout_stmt the statement can still finish after this limit >> as it does useful work besides waiting for locks. > > It's still entirely possible to get 99% done and then hit that last > tuple that you need a lock on and just tip over the lock_timeout_stmt > limit due to prior waiting and ending up wasting a bunch of work, hence > why I'm not entirely sure that this is that much better than > statement_timeout.
There are questions about whether this is a good idea, and there's still discussion ongoing. It doesn't look like it's in a state where we can confidently say "let's include this for 9.3" to me, but I'd like other viewpoints. Should we bump this to the next CF? It's clearly still a viable idea, just possibly not ready yet. - -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRNBTkAAoJELBXNkqjr+S2qd0H+gMdDFmoWLJbqw1IvlopTTiz LtYr/lkmiRVFFOPgcAMwrDrTzT1AkGIHbkYd0erXqRUNsSrFY9O3FabyQYfo9QG2 5HhvZkmNxf+WFyaqpg1gq/L1pm+2gr0o0N3GabmJTmg9JO7sf1BUBv/EdImaq1CT lARJXXNC5vI/sVr2P/GpazCzl2120t+ZM9QGyqqqrz6e5t3BjpkGR4Y7MxyVkcfs hDOpVIoXMDwOZVJTojLHLqeBdjOljRhCjgkqHKXii9ZUBCs5jFGBT/yOQCTwA2xo YyHbJt+7VJm/lTvG379Q/vXMvIAZkbWtENOwKokwPThlq2HDAAEluZ8U7h5/8i4= =49I0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
