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 5000952E.4040105@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
List pgsql-hackers
2012-07-13 22:32 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> 2012-07-12 19:05 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
>
>> I haven't really looked at the second patch yet, but at minimum that
>> will need some rebasing to match the API tweaks here.
>
> Yes, I will do that.

While doing it, I discovered another bug you introduced.
enable_timeout_after(..., 0); would set an alarm instead of ignoring it.
Try SET deadlock_timeout = 0;

Same for enable_timeout_at(..., fin_time): if fin_time points to the past,
it enables a huge timeout that wouldn't possibly trigger for short
transactions but it's a bug nevertheless.

>
> Thanks for your review and work.
>
> 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/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb and fsync
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb and fsync