I was thinking SET because UPDATE does an auto-lock.
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I can imagine some people wanting this. However, 7.1 has new deadlock
> > detection code, so I would you make a 7.1 version and send it over. We
> > can get it into 7.2.
>
> I object strongly to any such "feature" in the low-level form that
> Henryk proposes, because it would affect *ALL* locking. Do you really
> want all your other transactions to go belly-up if, say, someone vacuums
> pg_class?
>
> A variant of LOCK TABLE that explicitly requests a timeout might make
> sense, though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
