On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 12:50 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 1/16/11 11:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I would prefer it if we had a settable lock timeout, as suggested many > > moons ago. When that was discussed before it was said there was no > > difference between a statement timeout and a lock timeout, but I think > > there clearly is, this case being just one example. > > Whatever happend to lock timeouts, anyway? We even had some patches > floating around for 9.0 and they disappeared. > > However, we'd want a separate lock timeout for autovac, of course. I'm > not at all keen on a *statement* timeout on autovacuum; as long as > autovacuum is doing work, I don't want to cancel it.
> Also, WTF would we > set it to? > Going the statement timeout route seems like a way to create a LOT of > extra work, troubleshooting, getting it wrong, and releasing patch > updates. Please let's just create a lock timeout. I agree with you, but if we want it *this* release, on top of all the other features we have queued, then I suggest we compromise. If you hold out for more feature, you may get less. Statement timeout = 2 * (100ms + autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay) * tablesize/(autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit / vacuum_cost_page_dirty) -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
