> > I personally think a wait period in seconds would be more useful.
> > Milli second timeouts tend to be misused with way too low values
> > in this case, imho.
>
> I understand, but GUC lost the vote. I have updated the TODO list to
> indicate this. Tatsuo posted a patch to add NO WAIT to the LOCK
> command, so we will see if we can get that into CVS.
Ok, I can see the advantages of that approach too.
Too bad there is no standard for this.
And it is probably really true that statement_timeout solves
the problem of very long (indefinite :-) waits for locks.
Andreas
