Tom Lane wrote: > I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you > could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of > statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this > proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
I think statement_timeout and lock_timeout are different. If I set statement_timeout to 1000 to detect a lock timeout, I can't run a query which takes over 1 sec. If a lock wait is occured, I want to detect it immediately, but I still want to run a long-running query. -- NAGAYASU Satoshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
