
> > I personally think a wait period in seconds would be more useful.
> > Milli second timeouts tend to be misused with way too low values
> > in this case, imho.
> 
> I understand, but GUC lost the vote.  I have updated the TODO list to
> indicate this.  Tatsuo posted a patch to add NO WAIT to the LOCK
> command, so we will see if we can get that into CVS.

Ok, I can see the advantages of that approach too.
Too bad there is no standard for this.

And it is probably really true that statement_timeout solves
the problem of very long (indefinite :-) waits for locks.

Andreas

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:35:47 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...