"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 09:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > SQLServer and DB2 have more need of this than PostgreSQL, but we do >> > still need it. >> >> Why? What does it do that statement_timeout doesn't do better? > > If the execution time is negligible, then setting statement_timeout is > the same thing as setting a lock timeout.
Advertising
To make this explicit, I think the typical scenario where it would make a difference is where you're running some large job in a plpgsql function. You might be processing millions of records but want for a single step of that process to not wait for a lock. You still want to process all the records you can though. So for example if you're updating all the user profiles on your system but don't want to block on any user-profiles which are locked by active users -- especially if you use database locks for user-visible operations which users can drag out for long periods of time. (Not saying I agree with that design but there are arguments for it and people do do it) -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
