Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate
>> between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I
>> should be using userlocks...
> Wouldn't a LOCK NOWAIT be a better solution? That is new in 8.0.
LOCK NOWAIT is only helpful if you can express your problem as not
wanting to wait for a table-level lock. When you're trying to grab a
row-level lock via SELECT FOR UPDATE, there isn't any provision for
NOWAIT.
The notion of a global lock_timeout setting is bogus IMHO, because
every proposed application of it has failed to consider the locks taken
internally by the system. But that objection wouldn't apply to a SELECT
FOR UPDATE NOWAIT command where the "no wait" behavior only applied to
the row lock being explicitly grabbed.
I thought I remembered someone working on such a thing just recently.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
