Tom Lane írta: > 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. >
You expressed stability concerns coming from this patch. Were these concerns because of locks timing out making things fragile or because of general feelings about introducing such a patch at the end of the release cycle? I was thinking about the former, hence this modification. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- 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
