Re: timeout on lock feature - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Subject Re: timeout on lock feature
Date
Msg-id 20010418180946.M3797@store.zembu.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: timeout on lock featurey  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: timeout on lock feature
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 07:33:24PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > What might be a reasonable alternative would be a BEGIN timeout: report 
> > failure as soon as possible after N seconds unless the timer is reset, 
> > such as by a commit.  Such a timeout would be meaningful at the 
> > database-interface level.  It could serve as a useful building block 
> > for application-level timeouts when the client environment has trouble 
> > applying timeouts on its own.
> 
> Now that is a nifty idea.  Just put it on one command, BEGIN, and have
> it apply for the whole transaction.  We could just set an alarm and do a
> longjump out on timeout.

Of course, it begs the question why the client couldn't do that
itself, and leave PG out of the picture.  But that's what we've 
been talking about all along.

Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: timeout on lock featurey
Next
From: Alex Pilosov
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] views and functions on relations