Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> What is notable/surprising about the behavior when two backends have >> different >> values for deadlock_timeout?
> I'd be inclined to think that PGC_SUSET is plenty. It's actually not > clear to me what the user could usefully do other than trying to > preserve his transaction by setting a high deadlock_timeout - what is > the use case, other than that? Yeah, that was my reaction too: what is the use case for letting different backends have different settings? It fails to give any real guarantees about who wins a deadlock, and I can't see any other reason for wanting session-specific settings. I don't know how difficult a priority setting would be. IIRC, the current deadlock detector always kills the process that detected the deadlock, but I *think* that's just a random choice and not an essential feature. If so, it'd be pretty easy to instead kill the lowest-priority xact among those involved in the deadlock. 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