From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
Date: | 2009-09-21 19:14:27 |
Message-ID: | 20090921191426.GR29793@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas escribió:
> Of course, I don't want:
>
> - GUCs that I'm going to set, execute one statement, and the unset
> (and this likely falls into that category).
> - GUCs that are poorly designed so that it's not clear, even to an
> experienced user, what value to set.
> - GUCs that exist only to work around the inability of the database to
> figure out the appropriate value without user input.
>
> On the flip side, rereading the thread, one major advantage of the GUC
> is that it can be used for statements other than SELECT, which
> hard-coded syntax can't. That might be enough to make me change my
> vote.
Perhaps we'd benefit from a way to set a variable for a single query;
something like
WITH ( SET query_lock_timeout = 5s ) SELECT ...
Of course, this particular syntax doesn't work because WITH is already
taken.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-21 19:18:11 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2009-09-21 19:09:32 | Progress on Writeable CTEs |