| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | deadlock_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 15:11:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1215443493.4051.600.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Why is deadlock_timeout set at SIGHUP?
If it effects statement behaviour it ought to be a USERSET. Using CPU
time isn't a problem we protect against anywhere else.
I'd like to be able to set deadlock-prone transactions lower, yet keep a
fairly high setting for others.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deadlock_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 15:16:24 |
| Message-ID: | 10462.1215443784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Why is deadlock_timeout set at SIGHUP?
Because it's not clear what the behavior would be like if different
backends had different settings ... except that it'd probably be
surprising.
regards, tom lane
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deadlock_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 15:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1215444921.4051.607.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Why is deadlock_timeout set at SIGHUP?
>
> Because it's not clear what the behavior would be like if different
> backends had different settings ... except that it'd probably be
> surprising.
Yeh, agreed. I was thinking to set the deadlock_timeout the same for all
people running the deadlock-prone transactions and set it higher for
others.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deadlock_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-07-08 02:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200807080207.m6827kP28626@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Why is deadlock_timeout set at SIGHUP?
>
> Because it's not clear what the behavior would be like if different
> backends had different settings ... except that it'd probably be
> surprising.
I have added a code comment explaining this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +