Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date
Msg-id 1340729267-sup-6095@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:

> So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
> keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
> Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
> regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
> We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
> and this would be plenty.
>
> Opinions?

My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.

I'll go set the patch "waiting on author".  Also, remember to review
some other people's patches.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Boszormenyi Zoltan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Next
From: Nils Goroll
Date:
Subject: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability