On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> We have discussed this at length and no one could state why having an
> timeout per lock is any better than using a statement_timeout.
Actually, I hit one.
I have a simple queue and a number of processes pulling jobs out of the
queue. Due to transactional requirements, the database is appropriate
for a first cut.
Anyway, a statement_timeout of 100ms is usually plenty to determine that
the job is being processed, and for one of the pollers to move on, but
every once in a while a large job (4 to 5MB chunk of data) would find
itself in the queue which takes more than 100ms to pull out.
Not a big deal, just bump the timeout in this case.
Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate
between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I
should be using userlocks...
--