On 9/25/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> If execution time is not negligible, then you may want to tell the
> difference between waiting for completion against waiting forever
> without doing anything useful at all.
>
[...thinking on this a bit...]
mmm... i think we can emulate WAIT number_of_seconds using the NOWAIT
and a bit of logic...
point for tom
>
> Plus, if applications are written using these concepts it is easier to
> port them to PostgreSQL.
>
no words... point for simon...
> Not planning to work on this myself, but I think it is a valid TODO.
>
i will make a try for 8.4
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
