2013-02-27 20:06 keltezéssel, Stephen Frost írta:
Zoltan,
* Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote:
If we get rid of the per-statement variant, there is no need for that either.
For my 2c, I didn't see Tom's comments as saying that we shouldn't have
that capability, just that the implementation was ugly. :)
But I am happy to drop it. ;-)
That said, perhaps we should just drop it for now, get the lock_timeout
piece solid, and then come back to the question about lock_timeout_stmt.
OK, let's do it this way.
Thanks,
Stephen
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
