| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'Craig Ringer' <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, 'Hans-Jürgen Schönig' <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Ants Aasma' <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Amit kapila' <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Date: | 2013-02-27 18:28:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20130227182846.GI16142@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I think anything that makes this patch simpler is a good idea. I don't
> like any of the accum_time stuff: it complicates the timeout API
> unreasonably and slows down existing use cases.
Right, I think we're on the same page there- I had just commented to
Zoltan that tracking the accumulated time shouldn't be the timeout
system's responsibility and that the timout API really shouldn't need
to be changed.
I'm not convinced that the lock-time-accumulation-timeout capability
is really all that valuable in the first place though, but perhaps I'm
in the minority on that.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-02-27 18:30:53 | Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-02-27 18:19:03 | Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements |