Alvaro Herrera írta: > Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > >> Alvaro Herrera írta: >> >>> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC >>>> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT >>>> is allowed) both should be implemented. >>>> >>>> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be >>>> applied to every lock that the statement would take. >>>> >>> In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053...@sss.pgh.pa.us >>> Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what >>> does WAIT [N] buy. >>> >> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT? >>
And easy of use in diverging from default lock_timeout? > Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see > you proposing that. > And you won't see me proposing any other feature removal either :-) -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
