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

From Boszormenyi Zoltan
Subject Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date
Msg-id 4FEAC5A7.3080802@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
2012-06-26 18:49 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
> 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.

Attached is the version which uses a registration interface.

Also, to further minimize knowledge of timeouts in timeout.c,
all GUCs are moved back to proc.c

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

I will look into it.

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
      http://www.postgresql.at/


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joel Jacobson
Date:
Subject: Re: Schema version management
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: new --maintenance-db options