On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Rod Taylor wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > We have discussed this at length and no one could state why having an > > > timeout per lock is any better than using a statement_timeout. > > > > Actually, I hit one. > > > > I have a simple queue and a number of processes pulling jobs out of the > > queue. Due to transactional requirements, the database is appropriate > > for a first cut. > > > > Anyway, a statement_timeout of 100ms is usually plenty to determine that > > the job is being processed, and for one of the pollers to move on, but > > every once in a while a large job (4 to 5MB chunk of data) would find > > itself in the queue which takes more than 100ms to pull out. > > > > Not a big deal, just bump the timeout in this case. > > > > Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate > > between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I > > should be using userlocks... > > Wouldn't a LOCK NOWAIT be a better solution? That is new in 8.0.
On a for update? -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend