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

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Date: 2009-05-11 23:33:56
Message-ID: 4A08B5E4.4050009@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/11/09 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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).

That was one of the reasons it's "completely and totally unworkable", as
I mentioned, if you read the next sentence.

The only real answer to the response time issue is to measure total
response time in the middleware.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-12 03:18:16 Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-11 23:30:09 Re: Show method of index