Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Tom argues that lock_timeout should be sufficient.  I'm not sure what
> > does WAIT [N] buy.
> 
> Syntax consistency with NOWAIT?

Consistency could also be achieved by removing NOWAIT, but I don't see
you proposing that.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers