RE: AW: timeout on lock feature - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mikheev, Vadim
Subject RE: AW: timeout on lock feature
Date
Msg-id 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D33B6@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to AW: timeout on lock feature  (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>)
Responses Re: AW: timeout on lock feature  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> This is the real reason why I've been holding out for restricting the
> feature to a specific LOCK TABLE statement: if it's designed that way,
> at least you know which lock you are applying the timeout to, and have
> some chance of being able to estimate an appropriate timeout.

As I pointed before - it's half useless.

And I totally do not understand why to object feature

1. that affects users *only when explicitly requested*;
2. whose implementation costs nothing - ie has no drawbacks  for overall system.

It was general practice in project so far: if user want some
feature and it doesn't affect others - let's do it.
What's changed?

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Oliver Seidel
Date:
Subject: theory of distributed transactions / timeouts
Next
From: Alex Pilosov
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] views and functions on relations