Tom Lane wrote: > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The problem with adding NO WAIT to specific commands is that is > > inheritly unflexible. I think this is why the community has agreed on > > implementing it based on GUC. > > I recall no such agreement ... when was this exactly? In any case > Bruce's recent complaints about regex_flavor have altered my opinions > about GUC variables a bit. They are bigger safety risks than they look, > especially ones that change semantics and are intended to be modified on > the fly. > > > Do you think it would help to reduce the GUCs flexibility by reducing > > the lock levels a user is allowed to define? > > I will vote against the patch no matter what, but I agree that it would > be less dangerous if it were confined to only apply to a limited set of > lock types.
The question is whether we should have a GUC variable to control no waiting on locks or add NO WAIT to specific SQL commands. Does anyone want to vote _against_ the GUC idea for nowait locking. (We already have two voting for such a variable.) If there is no one except Tom, we can continue. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
