Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date: 2009-05-11 23:25:44
Message-ID: 2570.1242084344@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I can see Zoltan's argument: for web applications, it's important to
> keep the *total* wait time under 50 seconds for most users (default
> browser timeout for most is 60 seconds).

And why is that only about lock wait time and not about total execution
time? I still think statement_timeout covers the need, or at least is
close enough that it isn't justified to make lock_timeout act like that
(thus making it not serve the other class of requirement).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-11 23:30:09 Re: Show method of index
Previous Message Greg Stark 2009-05-11 23:24:17 Re: Show method of index