=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem with adding NO WAIT to specific commands is that is > inheritly unflexible. I think this is why the community has agreed on > implementing it based on GUC.
I recall no such agreement ... when was this exactly? In any case Bruce's recent complaints about regex_flavor have altered my opinions about GUC variables a bit. They are bigger safety risks than they look, especially ones that change semantics and are intended to be modified on the fly. > Do you think it would help to reduce the GUCs flexibility by reducing > the lock levels a user is allowed to define? I will vote against the patch no matter what, but I agree that it would be less dangerous if it were confined to only apply to a limited set of lock types. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings