Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest
>> patch by introducing the validator function. Is it enough
>> to check for
>> (source == PGC_S_DEFAULT || source == PGC_S_SESSION)
>> to ensure only interactive sessions can get lock timeouts?
> I'm not sure that I know how this should work, but that approach seems
> a little strange to me. Why would we not allow PGC_S_USER, for
> example?
Why is this a good idea at all? I can easily see somebody feeling that
he'd like autovacuums to fail rather than block on locks for a long
time, for example.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
