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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoboHAtfydQxLGbx422nLN9227oe8AZ2Rjxznaf4ECfRKw@mail.gmail.com
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  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:
> I know, but it doesn't feel right to "register" static functionality.

We do it elsewhere.  The overhead is pretty minimal compared to other
things we already do during startup, and avoiding the need for the
array to have a fixed-size seems worth it, IMHO.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: avoid heavyweight locking on hash metapage
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: new --maintenance-db options