Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 2010/1/20 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>:
>> Attached with the proposed modification to lift the portability concerns.

> I think that it is a very bad idea to implement this feature in a way
> that is not 100% portable.

Agreed, this is not acceptable.  If there were no possible way to
implement the feature portably, we *might* consider doing it like this.
But I think more likely it'd get rejected anyway.  When there is a
clear path to a portable solution, it's definitely not going to fly
to submit a nonportable one.

			regards, tom lane