| 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: | 2013-03-16 18:26:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20130316182634.GR4361@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:
> On the whole though, I don't see anything wrong with pointer-and-count.
> I don't really believe that there's ever going to be a need to enable
> more than a couple of timeouts simultaneously, so I don't want an overly
> complicated data structure for it.
Alright, fair enough.
Zoltan, sorry for the back-and-forth Zoltan and thanks for being
persistent; I'd really like to see this capability added.
Thanks again,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-16 18:31:44 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-03-16 18:21:11 | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |