Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes:
> You expressed stability concerns coming from this patch.
> Were these concerns because of locks timing out making
> things fragile or because of general feelings about introducing
> such a patch at the end of the release cycle? I was thinking
> about the former, hence this modification.

Indeed, I am *very* concerned about the stability implications of this
patch.  I just don't believe that arbitrarily restricting which
processes the GUC applies to will make it any safer.
        regards, tom lane