On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 16:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > So, in summary, the position is that we have a timeout, but that timeout > > doesn't work in all cases. But it does work in some, so that seems > > enough for me to say "let's commit". Not committing gives us nothing at > > all, which is as much use as a chocolate teapot. > > > > I will be looking to commit this tomorrow morning, unless I hear some > > clear No comments, with reasons. > > I guess the question is whether it works in 10% of cases or 95% of > cases. In the first case there's probably no point in pretending we > have a feature if it doesn't really work. In the second case, it > might make sense. But I don't have a good feeling for which it is.
Well, I guess the people that wanted to wait forever may get their wish. For sync rep, I intend to put in place a client timeout, which we do have code for. The server side timeout still makes sense, but it's not a requirement for sync rep. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
