| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Date: | 2012-07-13 21:51:45 |
| Message-ID: | 26368.1342216305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> While doing it, I discovered another bug you introduced.
> enable_timeout_after(..., 0); would set an alarm instead of ignoring it.
> Try SET deadlock_timeout = 0;
Hm. I don't think it's a bug for enable_timeout_after(..., 0) to cause
a timeout ... but we'll have to change the calling code. Thanks for
catching that.
> Same for enable_timeout_at(..., fin_time): if fin_time points to the past,
> it enables a huge timeout
No, it should cause an immediate interrupt, or at least after 1
microsecond. Look at TimestampDifference.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-07-13 22:11:27 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-13 21:49:31 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |