Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request
>> that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF.
> I think "Returned with Feedback" would be more appropriate than
> "Rejected", since we're asking for a rework, rather than saying -
> we just don'
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Marc Cousin wrote:
>
>> This time, it's this case that doesn't work :
>
>> I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here.
>
> Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c516c3a.6
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Kevin Grittner írta:
>> I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request
>> that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF. Does
>> anyone feel this approach (without the framework) should be
>> pursued further?
>
> I certainly think so, the
Hi,
Kevin Grittner írta:
> Marc Cousin wrote:
>
>
>> This time, it's this case that doesn't work :
>>
>
>
>> I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here.
>>
>
> Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c516
Marc Cousin wrote:
> This time, it's this case that doesn't work :
> I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here.
Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c516c3a.6090...@cybertec.at
I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be r
The Monday 02 August 2010 13:59:59, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote :
> >
> > Also, I made sure that only one or two timeout causes (one of
> > deadlock_timeout
> > and lock_timeout in the first case or statement_timeout plus one of the
> > other two)
> > can be active at a time.
>
> A little clarificati
Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> Marc Cousin írta:
>
>> The Thursday 29 July 2010 13:55:38, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote :
>>
>>
>>> I fixed this by adding CheckLockTimeout() function that works like
>>> CheckStatementTimeout() and ensuring that the same start time is
>>> used for both deadlock_ti
Marc Cousin írta:
> The Thursday 29 July 2010 13:55:38, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote :
>
>> I fixed this by adding CheckLockTimeout() function that works like
>> CheckStatementTimeout() and ensuring that the same start time is
>> used for both deadlock_timeout and lock_timeout if both are active.
>>
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of jue jul 29 07:55:38 -0400 2010:
> Hi,
>
> Marc Cousin írta:
> > Hi, I've been reviewing this patch for the last few days. Here it is :
> >
> ...
> > * Are there dangers?
> > As it is a guc, it could be set globally, is that a danger ?
> >
>
>
The Thursday 29 July 2010 13:55:38, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote :
> I fixed this by adding CheckLockTimeout() function that works like
> CheckStatementTimeout() and ensuring that the same start time is
> used for both deadlock_timeout and lock_timeout if both are active.
> The preference of errors if
Hi,
first, thanks for the review.
> Hi, I've been reviewing this patch for the last few days. Here it is :
>
> * Submission review
> * Is the patch in context diff format?
> Yes
>
> * Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?
> Yes
>
> * Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc
Hi, I've been reviewing this patch for the last few days. Here it is :
* Submission review
* Is the patch in context diff format?
Yes
* Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?
Yes
* Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc?
Doc patches are there.
There are no reg
12 matches
Mail list logo
