<br /> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br /> Hash: SHA1<br /><br /> On 02/27/2013 09:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:<br
/><spanstyle="white-space: pre;">> * Boszormenyi Zoltan (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:zb@cybertec.at">zb@cybertec.at</a>)wrote:<br /> >> But unlike statement_timeout,<br /> >> with
lock_timeout_stmtthe statement can still finish after this limit<br /> >> as it does useful work besides waiting
forlocks.<br /> ><br /> > It's still entirely possible to get 99% done and then hit that last<br /> > tuple
thatyou need a lock on and just tip over the lock_timeout_stmt<br /> > limit due to prior waiting and ending up
wastinga bunch of work, hence<br /> > why I'm not entirely sure that this is that much better than<br /> >
statement_timeout.</span><br/><br /> There are questions about whether this is a good idea, and there's still
discussionongoing. It doesn't look like it's in a state where we can confidently say "let's include this for 9.3" to
me,but I'd like other viewpoints.<br /><br /> Should we bump this to the next CF? It's clearly still a viable idea,
justpossibly not ready yet.<br /><br /> - -- <br /> Craig Ringer <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/">http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/</a><br/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training
&Services<br /> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br /> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)<br /> Comment: Using GnuPG
withThunderbird - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br
/><br/> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRNBTkAAoJELBXNkqjr+S2qd0H+gMdDFmoWLJbqw1IvlopTTiz<br />
LtYr/lkmiRVFFOPgcAMwrDrTzT1AkGIHbkYd0erXqRUNsSrFY9O3FabyQYfo9QG2<br/>
5HhvZkmNxf+WFyaqpg1gq/L1pm+2gr0o0N3GabmJTmg9JO7sf1BUBv/EdImaq1CT<br/>
lARJXXNC5vI/sVr2P/GpazCzl2120t+ZM9QGyqqqrz6e5t3BjpkGR4Y7MxyVkcfs<br/>
hDOpVIoXMDwOZVJTojLHLqeBdjOljRhCjgkqHKXii9ZUBCs5jFGBT/yOQCTwA2xo<br/>
YyHbJt+7VJm/lTvG379Q/vXMvIAZkbWtENOwKokwPThlq2HDAAEluZ8U7h5/8i4=<br/> =49I0<br /> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br /><br
/>
