Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> writes: > Tom Lane írta: >> I think the way you're describing would be both harder to implement >> and full of its own strange traps.
> Why? Well, for one thing: if I roll back a subtransaction, should the lock wait time it used now no longer count against the total? If not, once a timeout failure has occurred it'll no longer be possible for the total transaction to do anything, even if it rolls back a failed subtransaction. But more generally, what you are proposing seems largely duplicative with statement_timeout. The only reason I can see for a lock-wait-specific timeout is that you have a need to control the length of a specific wait and *not* the overall time spent. Hans already argued upthread why he wants a feature that doesn't act like statement_timeout. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers