Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

2012-06-27 10:34 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> 2012-06-26 18:49 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
>> Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:
>>
>>> So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
>>> keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
>>> Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
>>> regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
>>> We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
>>> and this would be plenty.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>> My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.
>
> Attached is the version which uses a registration interface.
>
> Also, to further minimize knowledge of timeouts in timeout.c,
> all GUCs are moved back to proc.c
>
>> I'll go set the patch "waiting on author".  Also, remember to review
>> some other people's patches.
>
> I will look into it.
>
> Best regards,
> Zoltán Böszörményi

Does anyone have a little time to look at the latest timeout framework
with the registration interface and the 2nd patch too? I am at work
until Friday next week, after that I will be on vacation for two weeks.
Just in case there is anything that needs tweaking to make it more
acceptable.

Thanks in advance,
Zoltán Böszörményi

-- 
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
      http://www.postgresql.at/