Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest
>> patch by introducing the validator function. Is it enough
>> to check for
>>  (source == PGC_S_DEFAULT || source == PGC_S_SESSION)
>> to ensure only interactive sessions can get lock timeouts?

> I'm not sure that I know how this should work, but that approach seems
> a little strange to me.  Why would we not allow PGC_S_USER, for
> example?

Why is this a good idea at all?  I can easily see somebody feeling that
he'd like autovacuums to fail rather than block on locks for a long
time, for example.

			regards, tom lane