* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> It'd be relatively painless to make that happen as part of the
> >> deadlock-check timeout function, but that's typically only a one-second
> >> delay not a "few seconds".  I think it'd likely be overly chatty.
> > Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second.  Do we already track how long
> > we've been waiting?
> No, because we're *asleep*.  You'd have to add an additional
> timeout-interrupt reason.  Plus there's a ton of interesting questions
> about what's safe to do from an interrupt service routine.

Eh, I wouldn't really want to add an additional timeout-interrupt if we
could avoid it.  Sorry, hadn't followed what you meant (honestly, I
expected us to already have some kind of timeout loop when waiting, nice
to know that we don't :).  As I mentioned to Alvaro, a single NOTICE
after a full second of waiting would be fine for my use case, at least.
My main concern was that it'd be one-per-second, which would be too

I agree with your concern about doing things from an ISR though...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to