Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date
Msg-id 2570.1242084344@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I can see Zoltan's argument: for web applications, it's important to 
> keep the *total* wait time under 50 seconds for most users (default 
> browser timeout for most is 60 seconds).

And why is that only about lock wait time and not about total execution
time?  I still think statement_timeout covers the need, or at least is
close enough that it isn't justified to make lock_timeout act like that
(thus making it not serve the other class of requirement).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Show method of index
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Show method of index