X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5012475F7F
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  7 Feb 2003 04:41:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fzkmail2.fzk.de (fzkmail2.fzk.de [141.52.27.52])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2815D476078
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  7 Feb 2003 04:35:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM resy5.fzk.de BY fzkmail2.fzk.de ;
 Fri Feb 07 10:35:44 2003 +0100
Received: œby rodos.fzk.de with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.7.1) id KAA15456 for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:35:43 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <3E437DEF.406C7445@rodos.fzk.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:35:43 +0100
From: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/780)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: SET TIMEOUT equivalent / was: Lock timeout detection
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200302/143
X-Sequence-Number: 11541

>
> > >
> > > T1 (within psql):
> > > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > > DELETE n
> > >
> > > T2 (within psql):
> > > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > > <waiting forever>
> > >
> ...
> >
> >    I don't think there is a deadlock in the example
> > given above. If I'm not mistaken a deadlock occurs if
> > both transactions are waiting for each other to
> > release the lock (i.e T1 waits for T2 to release
> > locks/resources while T2 is also waiting for T1 to
> > release locks/resources. In the above example,  T1
> > doesn't wait for T2 to do something before finishes
> > the transaction (Only T2 is waiting for T1 to finish),
> > hence the condition for deadlock is not met.
> >
> Yupp, I agree.
> But from former DBMS I was dealing with,
> I know this SET TIMEOUT called feature, which if properly set
> terminated processes like that hanging on T2.
> Is there something comparable within Postgres?
>
Sorry to bother again with my question. Is it too stupid or
trivial to this list? Should I send it to NOVICE?
Regards, Christoph