Alvaro Herrera írta:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>
>> Alvaro Herrera írta:
>>
>>> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The vague consensus for syntax options was that the GUC
>>>> 'lock_timeout' and WAIT [N] extension (wherever NOWAIT
>>>> is allowed) both should be implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Behaviour would be that N seconds timeout should be
>>>> applied to every lock that the statement would take.
>>>>
>>> In http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/291.1242053201@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>> Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient. I'm not sure what
>>> does WAIT [N] buy.
>>>
>> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?
>>
And easy of use in diverging from default lock_timeout?
> Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see
> you proposing that.
>
And you won't see me proposing any other feature removal either :-)
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/