I was thinking SET because UPDATE does an auto-lock.
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can imagine some people wanting this. However, 7.1 has new deadlock
> > detection code, so I would you make a 7.1 version and send it over. We
> > can get it into 7.2.
>
> I object strongly to any such "feature" in the low-level form that
> Henryk proposes, because it would affect *ALL* locking. Do you really
> want all your other transactions to go belly-up if, say, someone vacuums
> pg_class?
>
> A variant of LOCK TABLE that explicitly requests a timeout might make
> sense, though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
