Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.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