Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>

From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>

To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor@cybertec.at>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

Date: 2010-01-13T14:39:29Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/1/13 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>:
>>
>> well, i actually think that PANIC is too high for this...
>>
>
> Well, it tries to lock and then open a critical system index.
> Failure to open it has PANIC, it seemed appropriate to use
> the same error level if the lock failure case.
>

if you try to open a critical system index and it doesn't exist is
clearly a signal of corruption, if you can't lock it it's just a
concurrency issue... don't see why they both should have the same
level of message

-- 
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157