Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rod Taylor wrote:
> >> Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate
> >> between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I
> >> should be using userlocks...
>
> > Wouldn't a LOCK NOWAIT be a better solution? That is new in 8.0.
>
> LOCK NOWAIT is only helpful if you can express your problem as not
> wanting to wait for a table-level lock. When you're trying to grab a
> row-level lock via SELECT FOR UPDATE, there isn't any provision for
> NOWAIT.
>
> The notion of a global lock_timeout setting is bogus IMHO, because
> every proposed application of it has failed to consider the locks taken
> internally by the system. But that objection wouldn't apply to a SELECT
> FOR UPDATE NOWAIT command where the "no wait" behavior only applied to
> the row lock being explicitly grabbed.
>
> I thought I remembered someone working on such a thing just recently.
Added to TODO:
* Allow FOR UPDATE queries to do NOWAIT locks
--
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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
